Taking into account all the forum-wide word-war by the Temperance Campaign, it makes an unbelievable amount of sense that the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner proportionally had the most Campaigner supporters.
Or that Feducci had the most Agitators, that wasn’t exactly surprising either.
I don’t see how anything could have cost him a majority which he didn’t have: "During the second week, Feducci’s lead waned by 4%." 45 + 4 = 49% - no majority there. And I don’t think more people would’ve switched to Feducci than from Feducci, if you’re implying that the Honey Well prevented him from gaining a majority that he didn’t start out with for the second week.[/quote]
Dang, this is why percent points annoy me. Either it dropped from 49% to 45% , which is 4 percent points,
or the 45% is equal to 96% of Feducci’s votes prior to the second week, which would mean he had 46,875% of the votes. Not explicitly using percent points leaves it so ambiguous, though in this case it’s probably 49% to 45%.
Failbetter’s experimenting with social actions right now, what with the Sanguine Ribbons. If they end up making agitating both engaging and enjoyable for next year, I’d be much obliged to try that career path on next time. Let’s hope it does.
I think mechanics also played a role in this choice. When you’re a Fixer, you directly help other players. Gives you this nice warm feeling and all. As a Campaigner, however, you harp at them for money, which is neutral because they can simply refuse, but as an Agitator you straight up harass other players. Which might be considered inconvenient.
it’s gonna be a challenge but I believe in them. edited by gronostaj on 7/31/2017
I think mechanics also played a role in this choice. When you’re a Fixer, you directly help other players. Gives you this nice warm feeling and all. As a Campaigner, however, you harp at them for money, which is neutral because they can simply refuse, but as an Agitator you straight up harass other players. Which might be considered inconvenient. [/quote]
Personally, I much preferred receiving and answering requests for donations. Getting the money is not difficult and, if you’re dealing with another Campaigner, there’s a degree of implied reciprocity. In contrast, I found Fixer offers less enjoyable as I rarely needed their help. Yet, as Fixers need to fix things in order to buildup their vote totals, with an oversupply of Fixers you have to actively get into trouble if you want to be a team player and help them. In my case, this meant drinkings lots and lots of absinthe. This was pretty hilarious given my character’s support for the Campaigner, but it’s still a good illustration of just how broken things can get when you have +50% Fixers.
It might be a good idea to give Fixers a new main activity and make fixing things for players more passive. By which I mean, if you get in trouble and need a Fixer, you ask a Fixer for help, rather than the Fixers asking if they can help you. That way you don’t get buried in offers every time you have a little suspicion or scandal.
No need to actively get into trouble. You can keep your menaces sufficiently high with just gear to be eligible for help offers from Fixers.
[quote=Anne Auclair]It might be a good idea to give Fixers a new main activity and make fixing things for players more passive. By which I mean, if you get in trouble and need a Fixer, you ask a Fixer for help, rather than the Fixers asking if they can help you.[/quote] Making Fixers a passive profession will severly block many from finding a way to advance their election career. Active options are more engaging in a game than passive ones.
That’s why they’d have a new active profession.[/quote]
Sorry. I’ve missed that part of your suggestion.[/quote]
Or alternatively, they could be given two active professions so they had more stuff to do. In addition to Fixing allies, they could also Fix enemies by bribing them to switch sides. Accepting a bribe could mark a person for one-time special attention by the Agitators, which in turn would give them more to do. And bribes would give players more incentive to switch later in the election, when it would be a hassle to rebuild up their career levels, which in turn would make elections potentially more fluid.
. edited by Anne Auclair on 10/17/2017