At the very beginning, Cai Zhiyuan considered the 'Minority Answer' as a potential bonus factor.

Because 'number of people' is a key variable in similar games.

The question is whether the 'Majority Faction' will get an extra reward, or whether the 'Minority Faction' will get an extra reward.

It might seem like there's a 50% chance for each, but from the designer's perspective, it's highly likely that the minority gets rewarded.

If it's assumed that the 'Majority Answer gets the reward,' it would inevitably cause player conformity and clustering, coupled with the rule of 'an extra reward for five people choosing the same answer,' which could significantly reduce the game's strategy aspect.

Because players with different options would only cluster together, not avoid each other.

The playability and strategy of the game would be greatly compromised.

At the same time, the benefits of the Questioner and players are negatively correlated; the more players earn, the more the Questioner loses.

The setting of 'Minority getting extra rewards' aligns more with gameplay design logic.

Of course, this is just a preliminary inference and requires further verification through specific questions.

For the first question, Cai Zhiyuan chose C because he guessed Kong Yuxin's strategy and was quite sure it was the correct answer.

In fact, to be a definite minority, the best choice for this question would be A.

But Cai Zhiyuan still chose C because he wasn't sure if he could select the correct answer in the second question and wanted to conduct a comparative test.

For the second question, Cai Zhiyuan chose B because it was the majority choice among community-independent players.

This choice had a gambling element but was also based on reasoning.

Cai Zhiyuan's judgment was that the less apparent the differences in options, the higher the correct response rate from community-independent players might be.

Because for questions that seem ambiguous, community players are likely to answer based on first impressions and unlikely to consult community experts deliberately.

Because whether they get it right or wrong, it doesn't profit them in any way.

But the second question involved linguistics, which most players didn't know, so if they guessed purely on first impressions, the distribution among the three options should have been about the same.

For questions like this, many players would become curious and ask the few who have expert knowledge.

In this way, the suggestions from the few who know the correct answer are more likely to be broadly adopted, causing a slight difference in the ratio of the three options.

Meanwhile, 'Player Representative' Gao Jialiang suggested C, so Cai Zhiyuan opted for B to avoid it and become a minority for additional gains.

After these two questions, Cai Zhiyuan roughly determined that: the 'Minority Answer' + 'Correct Answer' would earn a reward of 7,000-minute visa time.

Moreover, the total gains from the first and second questions are different, allowing for an approximate deduction of other players' choices.

The total gain for the first question was -7,000; Kong Yuxin and Cai Zhiyuan must have had the same choice, granting them both +7,000, while the other three were likely -7,000 each.

For the second question, with a total gain of -11,000, the remaining four, aside from Cai Zhiyuan, had gains of -18,000. This suggests perhaps three were -7,000 and one was 3,000, or two were -7,000 and two were -2,000.

Naturally, these two questions have many other possibilities, but listing each scenario would be overly complex, so Cai Zhiyuan could only consider the options with the highest probability.

Regardless, it's unlikely that another player gained a 7,000 reward from the second question; otherwise, such a high loss wouldn't have appeared.

By the third question, more players had realized that the 'Minority Answer' would yield gains.

For instance, in the second question, a player likely gained 3,000 and would have realized this.

The third question happened to be one with a very clear answer.

All five knew the correct answer was B, but only two actually chose option B.

The difference among the other three players was that, at this point, apart from Cai Zhiyuan, the other two couldn't clearly judge how many players would intentionally choose the minority option.

Judgments would be directly influenced by considering 'only oneself would intentionally choose the minority' versus 'at least 2 to 3 players would intentionally choose the minority.'

Among options A and C, the community-independent players' choices were: A at 11%, and C at 14%.

Hence, the other two players happened to both choose the lower A option, resulting in a clash.

Of course, Cai Zhiyuan's ability to earn such high gains involved a significant element of luck.

But, having grasped the information gap, even in worse odds, he could still maintain positive gains.

Just not necessarily as much profit.

Even though Yang Hui exposed this rule, putting all players back to the starting line, the gains from the first three questions were sufficient to give Cai Zhiyuan a substantial advantage.

...

Apart from this, Cai Zhiyuan also roughly confirmed that these five questions were not traps, and Gao Jialiang truly did not know the second question's answer.

This was actually a small trap deliberately set by the Imitator designing this game.

These three questions all seemed like professional questions, and Kong Yuxin and Yang Hui's answers could indeed give the illusion that 'the questions were tailor-made' for them.

But on closer thought, it's apparent that the difficulty amongst these three questions varied significantly.

The first question was of moderate difficulty, the third extremely simple, while the second was extremely tough.

The first and third questions actually leaned more towards general knowledge; even non-expert players could broadly grasp the meaning, creating an illusion.

This highlighted the feeling that the 'player representative' for the second question was pretending not to know, further undermining mutual trust between players.

However, considering the logic of game design, the assumption of "five questions as traps" is hard to establish.

Since this game has 25 players and 5 rooms, designing trap questions would mean the Imitator would need to provide 25 professional questions and forcibly tailor everything from player selection to room allocation.

But this game's selection process has specific screening rules, and the Imitator designing this game can't foresee which specific players will enter the game.

Moreover, there's absolutely no need to do so, as it doesn't provide any additional benefit to the Imitator.

Like opening a casino, where the house just needs to set roughly fair rules to take a cut; there's no need to design personalized games for each gambler.

After all, this is an allocation-type game with multiple participants, not a judgment-type game.

From this perspective, the next two questions are likely to change.

There may even be entirely different answering logics.

...

All players were ready to try their best to choose the minority answer.

Of course, everyone also understood that they could only exploit the information gap to stabilize the probability of selecting the minority answer before this rule was exposed.

Once exposed, players' thoughts would gradually shift into multiple layers of deception, where choosing the minority answer would be purely about luck.

Nonetheless, they could only grit their teeth and continue playing.

However, the fourth question that appeared on the large screen left all players with astonished expressions, disrupting their previous strategies.

Because it was no longer a professional question.

[Is your gender the majority among players in this game?]

[A. Yes]

[B. No]

[C. I don't know]

If you find any errors ( broken links, non-standard content, etc.. ), Please let us know < report chapter > so we can fix it as soon as possible.