Additional Twist to Installing the Fuse / Fixing the Phone Box

[SenatorJPO 13]

It's a "step in the right direction" that developers have added the task of fuse-gathering to the process of fixing the phone box and, ultimately, summoning the police for an escape.

However, this still leaves phoning the police as having fewer steps -- and requiring less player coordination -- than does fixing either of the automobiles.

To further balance the methods of escape, perhaps this idea could be implemented:

While installing the fuse / repairing the phone box, if more than a few "skill checks" (button presses at the indicated times) are failed, then the counselor is electrocuted.

This adds another element of danger and makes a counselor with high "intelligence" more valuable than otherwise.

Not to mention, an electrocuted counselor's corpse would activate the "fear" status of low-composure counselors who approach the fuse box thereafter!

(Whether or not the player using that still-living counselor knows the deceased counselor had died accidentally, or had been killed by Jason, in mid-repair.)
 

[Alexel 70]

A Shyamalan twist.

[SenatorJPO 13]

Some calculations of how allowing a counselor to be accidentally electrocuted introduces a new layer of counselor-selection "calculus" (or really, basic arithmetic) into player strategy:

Presume one-third of failed skill checks, at the phone-fuse box specifically, result in electrocution.

Situation 1: Player with poor reaction time (misses 1-in-2 skill checks) chooses Vanessa Jones ("1" intelligence)
0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.5 chance of failure X 8 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.13, or a 13-percent (or 1-in-7.7; or 10-in-77) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

Situation 2: Player with poor reaction time (misses 1-in-2 skill checks) chooses Deborah Kim ("10" intelligence)
0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.5 chance of failure X 2 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.033, or a 3.3-percent (or 1-in-30; or 10-in-300) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

Situation 3: Player with good reaction time (misses 1-in-20 skill checks) chooses Vanessa Jones ("1" intelligence)
0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.05 chance of failure X 8 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.013, or a 1.3-percent (or 1-in-77; or 10-in-770) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

Situation 4: Player with good reaction time (misses 1-in-20 skill checks) chooses Deborah Kim ("10" intelligence)
0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.05 chance of failure X 2 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.003, or a 0.3-percent (or 1-in-33; or 10-in-330) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

Other, intermediate situations: Too numerous to work-out here, but you can do the math!

As shown, choosing a 10-intelligence counselor makes the player who misses half of his or her skill checks -nearly- (but not quite) as capable of avoiding electrocution (as in Situation 2), as the player who misses only 5-percent of his or her skills checks but had chosen a 1-intelligence counselor (as in Situation 4).

(In other words: A counselor's intellect matters almost as much as the player's reaction time, when trying to repair things -- with or without the hence-proposed "electrocution" mechanism.)
 

[SenatorJPO 13]

P.S.

This post was inspired by Chuck's death in Friday the 13th: Part 3D, wherein Chuck is electrocuted because his hand contacts "live" wires on the circuit-breaker panel after turning-on the breaker and being thrown against it by Jason.

(Although there's no close-up to definitively prove that's precisely what happened, in real life such erroneous hand placement -- touching the wires of a connected fuse that hasn't blown, with the "master breaker" still "on" -- would be the most likely means of electrocution via fuse box.)
 

[Risinggrave 1,571]

While I wouldn't mind electrocution, I just want to weigh in on something noted in the OP. 

 

It takes less steps to contact the police then to fix the car. The trade off is that once the car is ready, you go. There is still a multi minute wait for the police to arrive. 

[Austin.JM 42]

I think the fact the it takes five minutes for the police to arrive is the thing that fully balances it, they stated that the reason they put the phone box fuse in is because if somebody happens to spawn directly next to the fuse box then it would be lame it the match only lasted five minutes until the police arrive they stated the fuse will always spawn in the same camp ground as the fuse box but that still leaves time to search for it then fix the phone then call the police and wait and there's other things to consider, so a counselor finds the fuse but then bam Jason pops up chases them away and kills them thus preventing other players from finding the fuse unless they stumble across the dead body, but if the person gets killed I'm the water then all their inventory is gone and now the fuse is out of the match until it ends not to mention the fuse box males a loud noise when someone fails a a kill check alerting Jason so if he already knows where the fuse box is or sees the sound blip on sense the he can come straight to your location. Jason being the OP bad ass he is I really don't think adding yet another thing to go against the counselors will balance it out more maybe if they switched it so the electrocution happened instead of the loud noise I'd be cool with it but not both

[TMSStoneaxe 36]

I was thinking a lock on the electric box that needs to be unlocked by an electrical box key before you can use the fuse on it and repair it so there would be 3 items you use to repair it

[Kodiak 1,792]

An interesting idea for sure, but personally I think that getting electrocuted would simply spoil the game experience for some. I think having your progress reset is a sufficient trade-off for failing to fix the phone; I'm not sure if you played the beta but if you ever attempted to fix the phone with a counselor who had crap intelligence, you'll know that it took a long time. Fixing stuff was the speciality of high intellect counsellors, and seeing as most of their other stats suffer for it, if they fail then their progress isn't set back much. If someone with crap intellect fails the skill check, then it's a big kick in the nuts when they get knocked back a bar.

 

I remember unlocking Tiffany towards the end of the beta, and she had terrible intelligence. It took literal minutes just to gas the car up, where-as AJ Mason (who didn't even have 10 intelligence) managed to sort it in about 15-20 seconds. Same thing with the phone. During that period, whoever's trying to fix the phone is an incredibly easy target for Jason. Electrocution would just cut some people's games short without giving them much of a chance to escape. It's a bit different if someone jumps out of a window at the top of Higgin's House or something, at least their wounds are self inflicted rather than chance inflicted

[FireSource 10]

Some calculations of how allowing a counselor to be accidentally electrocuted introduces a new layer of counselor-selection "calculus" (or really, basic arithmetic) into player strategy:

 

Presume one-third of failed skill checks, at the phone-fuse box specifically, result in electrocution.

 

Situation 1: Player with poor reaction time (misses 1-in-2 skill checks) chooses Vanessa Jones ("1" intelligence)

0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.5 chance of failure X 8 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.13, or a 13-percent (or 1-in-7.7; or 10-in-77) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

 

Situation 2: Player with poor reaction time (misses 1-in-2 skill checks) chooses Deborah Kim ("10" intelligence)

0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.5 chance of failure X 2 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.033, or a 3.3-percent (or 1-in-30; or 10-in-300) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

 

Situation 3: Player with good reaction time (misses 1-in-20 skill checks) chooses Vanessa Jones ("1" intelligence)

0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.05 chance of failure X 8 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.013, or a 1.3-percent (or 1-in-77; or 10-in-770) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

 

Situation 4: Player with good reaction time (misses 1-in-20 skill checks) chooses Deborah Kim ("10" intelligence)

0.33 chance of electrocution-on-failure X 0.05 chance of failure X 2 skill checks to fix the phone = 0.003, or a 0.3-percent (or 1-in-33; or 10-in-330) chance of electrocution while trying to repair the fuse box

 

Other, intermediate situations: Too numerous to work-out here, but you can do the math!

 

As shown, choosing a 10-intelligence counselor makes the player who misses half of his or her skill checks -nearly- (but not quite) as capable of avoiding electrocution (as in Situation 2), as the player who misses only 5-percent of his or her skills checks but had chosen a 1-intelligence counselor (as in Situation 4).

 

(In other words: A counselor's intellect matters almost as much as the player's reaction time, when trying to repair things -- with or without the hence-proposed "electrocution" mechanism.)

 

 

Your maths is way off and on top of that: when you fail a skill check, you'll have to do it again.

 

Situation 1: The amount of fails you'll have in 8 tries is: 0.5*8 = 4 on average. The amount of fails you have in those 4 tries is 2, next is 1, next is 0.5 etc. This infinite sum (sum of 8/2^n with n between 0 and infinite) equals to 16, so let's say you'll have to do the skill check 16 times here.

Doing the skill check 8 times means you have 0% chance at electrocution (since you succeeded 100%), doing the skill check 16 times means 16-8=8 there are still 8 failed tries.

The chance of electrocution here is 1-(1-0.33)^8=.959 which is 95.9%.

Situation 2: Infinite sum (2/2^n) equals to 4 skill checks, of which 2 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^2=.5511 which is 55.1%.

Situation 3: Infinite sum (8/20^n) equals to 160/19 = 8.42 of which 8.42-8=0.42 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^.42=.155 which is 15.5%.

Situation 4: Infinite sum (2/20^n) equals to 40/19 = 2.105 of which 2.105-2=0.105 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^.105=.0412 which is 4.1%.

 

Upon first reading your comment I liked the idea but upon further thinking about it I dont really like it and here is why.

I know your 50% fail rate for a person to skill check is overexegerated, but I think your idea is too punishing, and too random, because there is a chance that an inteligent and good player just fucks up one time, and then he dies. There is no player interaction here, so it's not fun for the player who dies, and not fun for Jason since he doesn't interact with the player who died. I think it doesn't fit with the filosophy of "losing should be fun".

 

Let's just play the game with the changes they made first, and see if it is sufficient before making more suggestions about it.

[CrazyRalph 1,102]

I love the failed skill check shock idea! Wish more people like you were developing the game also. Guns doing a great job, i just think things couldve been enhanced a bit further imo.

[GrifterWolf 144]

I think the drawback on the phone is already pretty strong, alerting Jason who can teleport and grab you if you make a mistake. Though an interesting thought would be if you're standing in front of the phone box he can add insult to injury by impaling you against it and electrocuting you, but then you'd have to wonder why the box still works after that.

[GunMedia_Ben 3,032]

I think the drawback on the phone is already pretty strong, alerting Jason who can teleport and grab you if you make a mistake. Though an interesting thought would be if you're standing in front of the phone box he can add insult to injury by impaling you against it and electrocuting you, but then you'd have to wonder why the box still works after that.

 

 

This is basically the 'if you fail' during skill checks, Jason is made aware. Much more dangerous than simply being electrocuted. No real reason to add that kind of punishment when Jason can appear at any time when you screw up. Or even if you don't screw up he might just randomly come and check. 

Interesting idea, but overall would add even more punishment on top of the current system. We still want to encourage people to fix the phone and believe the current set up gives enough. A fixed vehicle means immediate escape if successful while the phone still requires 5 minutes of not getting killed while having to make for a choke point. 

[SenatorJPO 13]

An interesting idea for sure, but personally I think that getting electrocuted would simply spoil the game experience for some. I think having your progress reset is a sufficient trade-off for failing to fix the phone; I'm not sure if you played the beta but if you ever attempted to fix the phone with a counselor who had crap intelligence, you'll know that it took a long time. Fixing stuff was the speciality of high intellect counsellors, and seeing as most of their other stats suffer for it, if they fail then their progress isn't set back much. If someone with crap intellect fails the skill check, then it's a big kick in the nuts when they get knocked back a bar.

 

I remember unlocking Tiffany towards the end of the beta, and she had terrible intelligence. It took literal minutes just to gas the car up, where-as AJ Mason (who didn't even have 10 intelligence) managed to sort it in about 15-20 seconds. Same thing with the phone. During that period, whoever's trying to fix the phone is an incredibly easy target for Jason. Electrocution would just cut some people's games short without giving them much of a chance to escape. It's a bit different if someone jumps out of a window at the top of Higgin's House or something, at least their wounds are self inflicted rather than chance inflicted

 

I suppose some everyday horror is too mundane to factor into a Friday the 13th game. Perhaps self-electrocution belongs in a Final Destination game! *grin*

 

 

Your maths is way off and on top of that: when you fail a skill check, you'll have to do it again.

 

Situation 1: The amount of fails you'll have in 8 tries is: 0.5*8 = 4 on average. The amount of fails you have in those 4 tries is 2, next is 1, next is 0.5 etc. This infinite sum (sum of 8/2^n with n between 0 and infinite) equals to 16, so let's say you'll have to do the skill check 16 times here.

Doing the skill check 8 times means you have 0% chance at electrocution (since you succeeded 100%), doing the skill check 16 times means 16-8=8 there are still 8 failed tries.

The chance of electrocution here is 1-(1-0.33)^8=.959 which is 95.9%.

Situation 2: Infinite sum (2/2^n) equals to 4 skill checks, of which 2 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^2=.5511 which is 55.1%.

Situation 3: Infinite sum (8/20^n) equals to 160/19 = 8.42 of which 8.42-8=0.42 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^.42=.155 which is 15.5%.

Situation 4: Infinite sum (2/20^n) equals to 40/19 = 2.105 of which 2.105-2=0.105 are failed tries.

Chance of electrocution 1-(1-0.33)^.105=.0412 which is 4.1%.

 

Upon first reading your comment I liked the idea but upon further thinking about it I dont really like it and here is why.

I know your 50% fail rate for a person to skill check is overexegerated, but I think your idea is too punishing, and too random, because there is a chance that an inteligent and good player just fucks up one time, and then he dies. There is no player interaction here, so it's not fun for the player who dies, and not fun for Jason since he doesn't interact with the player who died. I think it doesn't fit with the filosophy of "losing should be fun".

 

Let's just play the game with the changes they made first, and see if it is sufficient before making more suggestions about it.

 

"Infinite sums," eh? Thank you for having shown the math.

 

Usually, on other sites, others will poo-poo my work, without constructive criticism. (That is, they'll say, "You're wrong!" but then offer no justification.)

 

You, on the other hand, went above-and-beyond by demonstrating a more accurate representation of the phenomenon.

 

For that detailed correction, a "like" is on its way! (When mine have replenished.)

 

 

I love the failed skill check shock idea! Wish more people like you were developing the game also. Guns doing a great job, i just think things couldve been enhanced a bit further imo.

 

Thank you, Crazy Ralph!

 

If I had the math skills -- see FireSource's response to my equations above -- and if I could tolerate the frustration of constant, cryptic code errors (which is one reason why I don't contend for web development jobs anymore), then maybe I could develop an app of my own (unrelated to this game) and make a fraction of what I make from my Palooka laborer job!

 

All things considered, I'm glad it's Gun Media developing this game, and not me. *grin*

 

P.S.

 

I'm out of "likes" today, but will positively mark your post once my "likes" are replenished.

 

 

I think the drawback on the phone is already pretty strong, alerting Jason who can teleport and grab you if you make a mistake. Though an interesting thought would be if you're standing in front of the phone box he can add insult to injury by impaling you against it and electrocuting you, but then you'd have to wonder why the box still works after that.

 

That reminds me: I've occasionally seen a player begin fixing the phone, only to purposely abort after an error-indicating "dial tone" to bait Jason over as a distraction.

 

 

This is basically the 'if you fail' during skill checks, Jason is made aware. Much more dangerous than simply being electrocuted. No real reason to add that kind of punishment when Jason can appear at any time when you screw up. Or even if you don't screw up he might just randomly come and check. 

Interesting idea, but overall would add even more punishment on top of the current system. We still want to encourage people to fix the phone and believe the current set up gives enough. A fixed vehicle means immediate escape if successful while the phone still requires 5 minutes of not getting killed while having to make for a choke point. 

 

Thanks for explaining your decision. And with that, I won't ask additional questions for a while, because these were the only "urgent" ones on my list. (And I managed to post this without going back for editing -- yes!)

[JPops 2,218]

Thanks for explaining your decision. And with that, I won't ask additional questions for a while, because these were the only "urgent" ones on my list. (And I managed to post this without going back for editing -- yes!)

JPO there is no need for that condescending tone. We expect that you post within the confines of the forum rules. There is no need to announce that you followed the rules in every post. Thank you.

[Davidt 763]

JPO there is no need for that condescending tone. We expect that you post within the confines of the forum rules. There is no need to announce that you followed the rules in every post. Thank you.

I'm sorry but how do u know someone's tone through text on a screen? Lol

[GrandMasterLynx 199]

I'm sorry but how do u know someone's tone through text on a screen? Lol

The only way to tell is HAVING IT ALL IN CAPS LIKE SO lol

 

I like that the fuse will be in the same area and that it will still be 5 mins for the police to show up

 

I agree we should wait till the game comes out before making more suggestions the more we make the longer it takes for the game to come out

[VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow 2,104]

Yeah Jpops maybe you need to re-read JPOs post.

[SHODANFreeman 179]

I also agree that Jason being alerted is already effective enough as a punishment for failure.

[Davidt 763]

The only way to tell is HAVING IT ALL IN CAPS LIKE SO lol

 

I like that the fuse will be in the same area and that it will still be 5 mins for the police to show up

 

I agree we should wait till the game comes out before making more suggestions the more we make the longer it takes for the game to come out

Caps just implies someone is yelling to me even though really yelling in text is exclamation marks ! that symbol for anyone not knowing the name of it.

[SenatorJPO 13]

JPO there is no need for that condescending tone. We expect that you post within the confines of the forum rules. There is no need to announce that you followed the rules in every post. Thank you.

 

I was celebrating about finally "getting used" to the forum rules, to sufficient extent that I'm now in complete compliance.

 

It is a sliver of self-satisfaction, in a milieu of transience and uncertainty! (Exclamation point is for enthusiasm, -not- indicative of "shouting" or "excessive boisterousness.")

 

 

Yeah Jpops maybe you need to re-read JPOs post.

 

I find that we can tell -quite a lot- about a person's psyche, simply by how he or she interprets innocuous remarks that aren't even addressed to him or her.

 

I see this frequently among Disqus threads in which I share my story of getting misled by my state's public university system about the value of their degrees, only to see higher-education apologists -- many of them lobbyists for the university or its alumni foundation -- attack my "character," rather than attempt to rebuff my experiences and observations about declining enrollment.

 

 

Caps just implies someone is yelling to me even though really yelling in text is exclamation marks ! that symbol for anyone not knowing the name of it.

I agree that all-caps, excluding usage in a series of acronyms, unequivocally communicates shouting, i.e. emphasizing every word emotionally.

 

I depart from your opinion, in that I use exclamation points to communicate enthusiasm, by implying a moderately quicker delivery of the lines so marked. (Without necessarily an increase in volume; think of an excited whisper, for instance.)

 

I use dashes around brief phrases, or segments of sentences, to emphasize those terms without using other, "louder" conventions for doing so.

 

[GunMedia_Ben 3,032]

I can tell a lot about a person by how they type on forums and my recommendation to you is to cool it and maybe try to interact casually. 

 

Also, I want to make it clear right now that you've been rather antagonistic in your responses and for some reason love to interject political views and disdain for higher education when literally no one asked you for said opinion. 

 

Whoopdy do, you can type well. Any copywriter, editor or author would immediately work to impress upon you that your style focuses on trying to sound 'smart,' without actually adding to the conversation. It rubs people the wrong way and falls more in line with someone using stage cue writing techniques, which are completely unnecessary when posting on a forum about a video game that involves a horror icon. 

[PowellCampsNAKED 736]

Guys! Phone wires are low voltage!

[Splatterhouse 1,434]

I agree with Ben! (The exclamation mark is to emphasise my agreement).

[SenatorJPO 13]

I can tell a lot about a person by how they type on forums and my recommendation to you is to cool it and maybe try to interact casually. 

 

Also, I want to make it clear right now that you've been rather antagonistic in your responses and for some reason love to interject political views and disdain for higher education when literally no one asked you for said opinion. 

 

Whoopdy do, you can type well. Any copywriter, editor or author would immediately work to impress upon you that your style focuses on trying to sound 'smart,' without actually adding to the conversation. It rubs people the wrong way and falls more in line with someone using stage cue writing techniques, which are completely unnecessary when posting on a forum about a video game that involves a horror icon. 

 

"...My recommendation to you is to cool it and maybe try to interact casually."

 

This doesn't make sense to me. "Cool it?"

 

I'm not the one accusing others of being "condescending" (what "JPops" called me); a "troll" (what "Camp Voorhees Hockey" called me); or anything.

 

There's -literally- nothing to "cool." Show me otherwise!

 

Cite examples. For instance, do you take umbrage with me questioning your "recommendations?"

 

Don't just say, "Cool it," because that's too vague.

 

What do you mean that I'm not "casual" enough?

 

"...You can type well..."

 

Thanks! I'll accept your compliment.

 

But in terms of following your advice to "be more casual," as you've iterated in another thread...

 

...-What- does being more "casual" entail?

 

Use more Internet slang? Use poor grammar and omit punctuation?

 

Because honestly, I don't know what you mean!

 

"Casual" might mean different things to you than to me -- and because -you're- making the mandate, I need to know -precisely- what you're demanding, in a sense of, "Here's -how- you act more casually on -this- forum."

 

P.S.

 

Yes, I underlined a few sentences in my post. There's -nothing- in the forum rules that says, "Don't underline."

 

If you want to interpret an imperative in the rules that -doesn't exist-, then that's "on you."

 

P.P.S.

 

By posting specifically about my posting style, -you- took the thread off-topic.

 

This thread is about the once-considered game mechanic of having failed skill-checks on the phone box resulting in player electrocution.

 

It sets a poor example to the rest of the forum, when the -administrator himself- goes off-topic.

[Splatterhouse 1,434]

"...My recommendation to you is to cool it and maybe try to interact casually."

 

This doesn't make sense to me. "Cool it?"

 

I'm not the one accusing others of being "condescending" (what "JPops" called me); a "troll" (what "Camp Voorhees Hockey" called me); or anything.

 

There's -literally- nothing to "cool." Show me otherwise!

 

Cite examples. For instance, do you take umbrage with me questioning your "recommendations?"

 

Don't just say, "Cool it," because that's too vague.

 

What do you mean that I'm not "casual" enough?

 

"...You can type well..."

 

Thanks! I'll accept your compliment.

 

But in terms of following your advice to "be more casual," as you've iterated in another thread...

 

...-What- does being more "casual" entail?

 

Use more Internet slang? Use poor grammar and omit punctuation?

 

Because honestly, I don't know what you mean!

 

"Casual" might mean different things to you than to me -- and because -you're- making the mandate, I need to know -precisely- what you're demanding, in a sense of, "Here's -how- you act more casually on -this- forum."

 

P.S.

 

Yes, I underlined a few sentences in my post. There's -nothing- in the forum rules that says, "Don't underline."

 

If you want to interpret an imperative in the rules that -doesn't exist-, then that's "on you."

 

P.P.S.

 

By posting specifically about my posting style, -you- took the thread off-topic.

 

This thread is about the once-considered game mechanic of having failed skill-checks on the phone box resulting in player electrocution.

 

It sets a poor example to the rest of the forum, when the -administrator himself- goes off-topic.

 

I bet you're really fun at parties