In the game I'm working on now, you play a team of scientists trying to escape a dangerous spaceship without getting killed. The only way to score points in by getting your scientists to the escape pods. Not every scientist will make it, and usually it becomes increasingly difficult to escape as time goes on. Points are scored in the following fashion:
-The first scientist to escape is worth 1 point, the second scientist is worth 2 points, the third is worth 3, and so on.
-Each player has a Head Scientist that is worth double.
-There are 2 cards in the game that temporarily boost the number of points you will earn.
So, in other words, each time one of your scientists escapes, every scientist to follow is worth 1 extra point. In playtesting, this tends to make the early game a game of chicken, as scientists approach the pods, but won't go in until they face a moment of death (such as an alien getting too close, or their lab about to explode). To be honest, I kind of like the feeling this creates.
Here is my worry: the first scientist to escape is worth exactly the amount that every other scientist is boosted because of him. I worry that the optimal strategy is to never be the first player to escape, even if it means loosing your scientist. Because of this, I've considered making the first scientist worth 2, the second worth 3, and so on.
My question is how do you figure something like this out? Is the best way just to reverse-judge the playtests? So far I've only recorded this for one game. Is there a mathematical or logical way of doing it? I considered writing a simulation program, but my computer is being buggy right now (unless there is a good way to do it in Excel).
Also, this might be a stupid question, but are you ever allowed to rely on players not playing optimally? (I think I know the question, but want to hear what you think)
Basically, the idea is that the scientists are scrambling to do two things before they leave: gather up research they have done, and test hypotheses that that would normally never pass the ethics board (e.g. "Hmmm... I've never seen a death ray up close before, I wonder what the look like when used? Do they kill with a beam of light, or rather..."). I know it might make a little more sense to be worth the number of turns you stay on board, but I kind of like this idea better. The game is going to be kind of tongue-and-cheek, so I don't worry too much about it making complete sense.
And to your second point, I'm not sure if I understand your example. Do you mean to say that the appearance of optimal play is more important than what is actually optimal? I guess my worry is this: lets say in all those situations, I push the red button. Something happens, game over. But what if I want to play again? I'll now know what the red button does.