<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=324835.msg15635963#msg15635963">Quote from: Intimate Ink on 24-10-2020, 03:47:55</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">First and foremost, I want to thank Red for running a wonderful game.  I had a great time reading all of the NPCs and rules even before it began. (I was stalking the thread....)  I'm on this site for reading/writing above all, and the rich prompts, hilarious antics of Red, and world building were beautifully done.  <br/><br/>My hearty thanks extend to all the players as well.  There was an assortment of great Aspirants and posts in this game.  The RPed story lines were great fun to follow.  I also know a couple of you have pointed out Chevis; let me assure you it's a little flattering and embarrassing coming from other writes that are so skilled.  Regardless, thank you, my sentiments are definitely returned.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Thank you so much.<br/><br/>And yes, I completely agree, I was thrilled with the variety of Aspirants and how well written they all were! :)<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">In terms of the game, before trying to venture down the road of constructive feedback, I want to say that I have been very happy with it.  (Honestly, doubly-so, I confess that I feared my fun might end when the big alliance came up.  While I was playing this game with only about 30 percent strategy and 70 percent intent to be constructively silly, I did have some fears of Chevis becoming irrelevant quickly.  Specifically, I was afraid I would be blocked from silly writing fun.  That turned out not to be the case, however, and I was so pleased!)</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I'm so very glad the game gave opportunities for this. I wanted to it to be not super serious mode but also reward smart plays. I think that's one of the areas I was happiest with with regards to everything.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I guess that still brings me to the question of alliances.  I think whether the *actual* effect of them (as demonstrated in the game,) is a guaranteed sweep, the fear of that is powerful.  That is in part due to the fact that I believe Ontan was on-track in bringing up historical precedent of it crashing games; I concur.  Personally, I would advocate for no formal alliance system period.  I think there is more or less already a very significant buff in players reaching out to each other in games, and agreeing to coordinate attacks/movements/etc.  You really don't need any extra buffs on top of that.  If you really want a group win-condition, have a truce system in place.  Beyond that, I know myself and some others really didn't want an alliance in this game, but sort of felt like their hand was being forced for an advantage.  I think by eliminating the formal alliance system you can both solve it being the 'right' way to win the game, and prevent the all-too-frequent in-group sweeps that occur in similar games.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I didn't want to weigh in too much at the time partly because of wanting to see it play out more, partly because I didn't want to get into territory where people might take things personally (nobody did guess I was just too protective there lol) but also because I know in group games on E there's a huge clique factor that I didn't really see in this game and was wondering if it would change things or not. Ultimately though, I agree with all of this. I want there to be interaction and for it to have risks involved, and I think making alliances a no-brainer with nothing but benefits was just a bad call there. Lack of foresight on my part.<br/><br/>And yeah, like I said in previous post, alliances as they exist now won't be coming back. Still pondering the trust system.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">To that end, I want to speak on the goal of relevance.  I'm not sure what model you wanted Red, and both are very valid:  There is more or less the model where leads get progressively more obvious, and people are outright eliminated over the weeks and/or walk away due to irrelevance.  There is the alternate model of more or less trying to maintain the feel that it is 'anyones game' as long as possible: I feel Hexville astounded me at its level of providing the latter.  I liked that a lot.  Whether that is by design or intent, I don't know.  I will say that due to Elliquiy's very high right of attrition in games in general, I have always questioned the viability of games on this site where people are deliberately narrowed down.  People often drop like flies in games here for reasons not about the game; that's no judgment, just observation.  Regardless, you end up in a bad situation if you’ve cut the writers that are willing to continue, and the ones left are fizzling out.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>So my design goals were basically to make a game that could work specifically designed for a forum that felt like a mix of a board game and a choose your own adventure story. I wanted there to be a clear mechanic for winning but no real clear path for how to get there, but lots of options that would hopefully make for fun along the way.<br/><br/>There were comeback mechanics in play. Geeklet mentions one in her next post here - as the last player without an NPC ally, she got two in secret. The player who would have got the bonus for being the last one established in a district dropped out that turn lol. But yeah there were lots of little things like this - the orbs reforming after three traits, etc., bonuses for going all in on stuff or losing out on things - i.e. Chevis being invited to the party for being the most denounced character. I'm glad it came across that way.<br/><br/>These mechanics were all pretty much set up in advance and most of them were secret for that reason. I didn't want anyone to 'lose as well as possible' and game the system. Obviously they'll all be slightly different the next time around.<br/><br/>And yeah, I have definitely noticed that last point. When I was contemplating running a serial killer/monster movie type game part of the mechanic was for the monster to eat the inactive players first so that the ones left active at the end were rewarded for it. I don't want anyone who is still active and posting to feel like there is nothing they can do, up until the game is either won or practically won, some of the mechanics worked in that regards, others not so much.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Regardless, if keeping everyone relevant as long as possible is an intent, I would say it might be helpful to make sure everyone continues to have some sort of writing prompt to do each week (unless nobody does on a given week).  Let people feel like they are gaining control of an area, even if it is an alleyway.  There's going to likely be attrition if people either A) feel like what they do doesn't matter at all due to actions against them, or B) if they don't get much opportunity to react as an aspirant.  I honestly really wasn't paying close enough attention to know how many people felt like this (I never did, I just had that momentary fear with the alliance.)  Regardless, to discourage drops making sure people still feel like they are making some sort of impact seems important.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>This is excellent advice.<br/><br/>As I think about it I really like the setup notion that everyone has one prompt going on all the time, and when you finish that one your next choice is okay, which of all these other prompts that you qualified for while that was going on do you want to do next? This actually manages GM work better too, as in the current system there could have been like, thirty prompts for six players, running twelve for twelve feels better for everyone imo. I really like this notion. :)<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">In terms of minions, I admit I hate RNG and RNG tends to hate me.  I fared better than usual on this, I have to admit.  Regardless, I think because minion traits are so punishing and rewarding, if they are kept around they should probably have origin and expiration dates.  There were some very strong minion traits and some fairly negative ones.  I think by having minions lose their gained traits (positive or negative) every one or two turns, you would at least eliminate  any feeling that people were getting disadvantaged for the dice they rolled vs what other people rolled five turns ago.  If people only have one turn to use this positive (or negative) minion trait, it might also encourage better strategy.  That at least seems reasonable in my head (alternatively, simply drop the minion trait system entirely.)</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>See I love RNG so I appreciate the input of someone who feels the opposite!<br/><br/>Without getting too sidetracked into what RNG is good for or not, I do think the minion traits feedback is valid. The traits and such were just too all over the place, but I think that can be fixed. I don't think anyone was really screwed over by minion influence rolls and over time I think it evened out for everyone. :)<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Finally, in terms of timing, I confess because I have a lot of writing to keep up with in addition to stupid, boring real life obligations, I (in contrast to some others it sounds like,) was really happy for the gaps between turns.  I also believe stagnation is one of the great marks of Elliquiy game attrition, so I'm mixed.  I guess as someone who runs games on here, I am forever searching for the fix.  </blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>As the kids say, mood.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Sometimes as a GM life comes up, obligations come up, and if you have to take a longer than usual to process a turn, you ideally don't want to come back to an empty room.  A lot of times you do, even when you try to give people things to keep busy with and offer plenty of advanced notice you will be unavailable for a the next ten days, or what not.  I don't know the solution here, unfortunately.<br/><br/>Regardless, I think there is a lot of GREAT going on in the game.  I loved the continued relevancy, I loved the sense of random events, I loved the system of first gaining minions and then NPCS by increasing influence.  The NPCs were colorful and added a lot to the world.<br/><br/>Ultimately, while I'm sad to see it go, please know I'm walking away grateful for a great game experience.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Well, good! :)<br/><br/><br/><em>Okay that's enough for this post!</em>