An Update on Outfits

So, I used the Effluvia in this part of the new Watchmaker’s Daughter content - because really, RNG rolls suck.
However, I had a nagging feeling that something is off - specifically how my character has that item. It was after I checked its sources that I was reminded that it is a Fruits of the Zee item.
A Faceted Decanter of Drownie Effluvia is a seasonal item. To get it without paying Fate, there’s luck involved - otherwise the player pays Fate to acquire it.

This item-based option is an alternative to a Dangerous challenge, within content that is supposed to showcase the use of balanced outfits.

P.S. I have sent an email over this. No copy-pasta, by the way.

What’s the feedback to send there? I don’t get it

Was it just the fact that there should have been no alternative to the Dangerous challenge, since it let you balance your outfit for three stats instead of four? Or maybe the feedback is that that’s a good thing, and there should be more ways to bypass challenges by having random obscure items?

I understand this is your perspective, and I mean this in the most kindest way possible, but the points raised in the perspective of the post are pretty tone deaf and wrong.

You have stated that this increased clicking, an issue that it was meant to solve. It was meant to[color=rgb(194, 178, 128)] [/color]&quot[color=#c2b280][reduce][/color][color=rgb(194, 178, 128)] the amount of clicking involved in mechanically optimal play…&quot [/color]but [color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]&quothas not achieved [that] [/color][color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]and… [/color][color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]has even made that aspect of the game somewhat worse.&quot [/color]This impacts players as a whole, which again you acknowledge is an issue. You want to change this, but you don’t have the manpower to do so. Nobody has or would disagree with this as a reason to hold removing the outfit changes for now.

However, as you stated, your refusal to change it immediately is also because those asking for it supposedly follow the playstyle of ‘heavy optimization’. These players are supposedly &quot[color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]not as widespread as it might sometimes seem from discussion in our community space.&quot[/color]
Does criticism stop being valid if a small group expresses it? Does it invalidate that some players are going to enjoy the game less, rather than more, which is the point of a game? In this case especially, as this change really only mildly increases enjoyment when it works and can destroy it when it doesn’t. And that means players are going to quit the game and stop spending money, which doesn’t benefit anyone.

And even then, there is no basis to say a small amount of players follow this supposed playstyle. Failbetter has not polled all/a large amount of players in game. It hasn’t collected player data on how many players are or aren’t following this playstyle. Community spaces are the main way to express feedback, so if a majority of players on those spaces dislike it, then it is safe to say that a majority of players dislike it unless proven otherwise. I wish I could soften this, but it’s pretty disrespectful to say players’ opinions don’t matter because it is a small amount of them saying it, especially without proof.

As for the last part about broad challenges… it was seven years ago. Since then, Fallen London has changed its map, its art style, its grinds, and even the shape of its boxes. Communities change, and so does what they are going to enjoy, or in this case, put up with. Not only that, but broad challenges are in new content made specifically for them. In this case, at best 5% of the content is designed with it in mind, while 95% of it ignores it or at worse becomes unintentionally harder. Broad challenges were controversial because they’re meant to be hard, but this change is controversial because it is flawed.

Tldr: The update has multiple issues, especially unintended ones, which Failbetter has admitted. One fix would be to remove it, which Failbetter opposes not to due to its infeasiblity, but because they believe that the community spaces asking for this only represent the feedback of a small group of elite players without having or seeming to have proof to back this up, and that a supposedly similar controversy, broad challenges, blew over and thus it is fine to assume this will be the same. Which it isn’t, as broad challenges were intended to be challenging, while outfit changes become challenging where they aren’t meant to. These two show a pretty terrible view of the community, and are wrong as I go into in the spoiler tag.

I don’t even have much of a personal stake in this. I just think that Failbetter shouldn’t ignore feedback based on who or where it comes from, as it’s going to hurt both Failbetter and the player base.

Honestly, I think the locking code may be buggy. I have found that when I am &quotsitting in my Lodgings doing nothing&quot, or even if I’m just in a location and not in a storylet, the &quot lock&quot goes away when I refresh the page.

If they’re so concerned about the silent majority, then they could just do a poll where every player can weigh in on the issue. That could show what the player base as a whole thinks.
edited by Alexander on 8/1/2020

This is all well and good, now if I could even click on ONE THING in my Lab without the Severs collapsing, that would be even better.

Honestly, did they replace the servers with breadsticks in the update as well?

It’s borked for you guys too, huh?

<Announcement>
Update: Hello all! Because the new mayor privately sold the game server to buy the sixth city, we have to use bread as a temporary server. In view of the risk of this server being used as a cat toy, the game will become unstable.

#The new mayor deliberately sabotaged the server, causing all Londoners to disappear#
#Rubbery Men retaliated by dumping unknown slime on the server due to the defeat of the election#
#The latest discovery is that FF’s electric powered car caused the server to be electrocuted and short-circuited!#
edited by chiche on 8/1/2020

Imagine the audacity of having your entire game mechanic built around literally clicking buttons that trigger 1-100% RNG rolls and trying to introduce “strategic play”. To RNG.

No, you won’t be able to build a good game out of this unless you literally throw out entire existing Fallen London and start from scratch. Your gameplay is literal, pure RNG. All you can do is make it “harder” (aka make players waste more time) or “easier” (aka make players waste less time).

I don’t play this game for the “game”, but for the story, for roleplay, for truly masterful writing that you manage to produce. If I wanted to play an actual game I’d play literally anything else. And I certainly don’t want to waste even more time to get to the good parts. I’m a busy adult. Like likely most of your playerbase. Giving me more RNG rolls wasting more of my time and calling that “strategic” is insulting.

Fallen London will never have good gameplay. And adding more RNG grind to RNG grind that’s already in place is not fun.

[quote=Senthe]Imagine the audacity of having your entire game mechanic built around literally clicking buttons that trigger 1-100% RNG rolls and trying to introduce &quotstrategic play&quot. To RNG.

No, you won’t be able to build a good game out of this unless you literally throw out entire existing Fallen London and start from scratch. Your gameplay is literal, pure RNG. All you can do is make it &quotharder&quot (aka make players waste more time) or &quoteasier&quot (aka make players waste less time).

I don’t play this game for the &quotgame&quot, but for the story, for roleplay, for truly masterful writing that you manage to produce. If I wanted to play an actual game I’d play literally anything else. And I certainly don’t want to waste even more time to get to the good parts. I’m a busy adult. Like likely most of your playerbase. Giving me more RNG rolls wasting more of my time and calling that &quotstrategic&quot is insulting.

Fallen London will never have good gameplay. And adding more RNG grind to RNG grind that’s already in place is not fun.[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this. There are many games out there that are ultimately about maximizing an RNG roll. I would argue it’s much of the point of many tactical RPGs, and the storynexus system is more than capable of sustaining such gameplay. I’m sure that with a lot of effort you could make a shockingly accurate recreation of, say, Pokemon Red.

Now the question of whether Fallen London should have interesting gameplay has actually turned out to be quite divisive. I’ve seen many people who seem to take the position that they’re only here for the story and any kind of mechanical complexity is just getting in the way of that. I personally find this view baffling. Fallen London is still a game, and a story-based game is ultimately made great when story and gameplay collaborate. Look at things like SMEN, Secrets Framed in Gold, Paisley and heck, even Fine Dining (Which I still hate) for examples of stories which are not possible without the gameplay, stories which make the mechanics sing in harmony with the narrative. Granted, Paisley just got ruined by the update, but that’s besides the point.

More mechanical complexity can be a good thing. The implementation was really, really bad and calls into question the good judgment of the designers, but I don’t think we should be automatically discarding attempts at interesting gameplay.
edited by NotaWalrus on 8/1/2020

[quote=NotaWalrus][quote=Senthe]Imagine the audacity of having your entire game mechanic built around literally clicking buttons that trigger 1-100% RNG rolls and trying to introduce &quotstrategic play&quot. To RNG.

No, you won’t be able to build a good game out of this unless you literally throw out entire existing Fallen London and start from scratch. Your gameplay is literal, pure RNG. All you can do is make it &quotharder&quot (aka make players waste more time) or &quoteasier&quot (aka make players waste less time).

I don’t play this game for the &quotgame&quot, but for the story, for roleplay, for truly masterful writing that you manage to produce. If I wanted to play an actual game I’d play literally anything else. And I certainly don’t want to waste even more time to get to the good parts. I’m a busy adult. Like likely most of your playerbase. Giving me more RNG rolls wasting more of my time and calling that &quotstrategic&quot is insulting.

Fallen London will never have good gameplay. And adding more RNG grind to RNG grind that’s already in place is not fun.[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this. There are many games out there that are ultimately about maximizing an RNG roll. I would argue it’s much of the point of many tactical RPGs and the storynexus system is more than capable of sustaining such gameplay. I’m sure that with a lot of effort you could make a shockingly accurate recreation of, say, Pokemon Red.

Now the question of whether Fallen London should have interesting gameplay has actually turned out to be quite divisive. I’ve seen many people who seem to take the position that they’re only here for the story and any kind of mechanical complexity is just getting in the way of that. I personally find this view baffling. Fallen London is still a game, and a story-based game is ultimately made great when story and gameplay collaborate. Look at things like SMEN, Secrets Framed in Gold, Paisley and heck, even Fine Dining (Which I still hate) for examples of stories which are not possible without the gameplay, stories which make the mechanics sing in harmony with the narrative. Granted, Paisley just got ruined by the update, but that’s besides the point.

More mechanical complexity can be a good thing. The implementation was really, really bad and calls into question the good judgment of the designers, but I don’t think we should be automatically discarding attempts at interesting gameplay.[/quote]

You say that whan my experience at the moment can be summed up with this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ5nV9aKthU

Edit: I’m back, but the game still runs like the server towers are full of raw sewage.
edited by Deathjack999 on 8/1/2020

Also as someone who doesn’t bother with Outfit Sets this change just seems dumb

Thank you - I’d been struggling to find words to sum up my distaste for the increased gameplay complexity and reduced choice.

I’ve no doubt that something in the future can be created to take advantage of outfit locking and make it interesting - but that does not exist in the game as it is. Additionally, given what they’ve said about FBGs stretched resources, it might be a long time before we actually receive content tailored for the change.

I am a fun of pretty complex games (those where you need to read 250+ pages manual to play decently or play at all). And you know… 95% of player base of this games are busy adults, often with kids and older than average.
edited by Waterpls on 8/1/2020

Ok, so this post will be mostly off topic, for the sake of addressing an argument that is interesting to me.

Yes, you can make this simplification. That’s why most people don’t play Pokemon Red for &quotchallenge&quot.

There is a guy who does lots of Pokemon Red solo (1 pokemon) runs on youtube (example). It requires basically having the entire game content memorized and preparing a specific strategy on how to deal with it. And even his goal is not just &quotbeating the game&quot. He tries to be as fast as possible and measures the time that each solo run takes to create a tier list. And, moreover, he resets battles that he thinks were too lucky for him. He needed to remove RNG and add an actual challenge to the existing game in order to make it fun.

And that’s because beating a RNG game is not a challenge. It won’t ever be a challenge. It just takes time. That’s all. For Pokemon Red RNG, the time you need to beat the game, depending on a situation, can span from two hours to two thousand years (in some softlocks). That’s a solid range that the players can manipulate and deal with. You can spend more time if you want to roleplay with your favourite pokemons. You can spend less time if you’re speedrunning.

And it’s okay to have entire game content memorized in order to optimize the time you spend beating Pokemon Red. It’s a short game with no story.

It’s absolutely not okay for Fallen London, an ultra-long game based on story, exploration, roleplay, where generally you want to avoid spoilers. As a relatively fresh player, I can either spoil the experience for myself, or grind who-knows-how-much longer in order to actually achieve some interesting things and reach the stories that I am grinding for.

Do I want to get to the stories faster? Yes. Do I want to have them spoiled before I get to them? No.

How the heck am I supposed to make this choice and not lose?
edited by Senthe on 8/1/2020

And since I’m new and not yet fully blinded by love for Fallen London content, nor very attached to the franchise, I just want to voice that this situation and the following statement made me doubt Failbetter:

  • as game designers, when they decided to make RNG challenges more complicated and annoying instead of consistently playing to their strengths - the narrative;
  • as product managers, when they didn’t test the changes with players, implemented them anyway, and then left them on production despite literally admitting that they are not complete;
  • as community managers, when they decided to ignore the most active and engaged part of their community for the sin of being the most active and engaged;
  • as web developers, when they clearly implemented some code that is buggy and at the very least overloads their servers;
  • as businesspeople, giving a PR statement in which they admit they didn’t build this right because they don’t have the necessary resources??? as if this is a good excuse for delivering a bad experience to your users??? I’m honestly stumped by this part.

[quote=Senthe]And since I’m new and not yet fully blinded by love for Fallen London content, nor very attached to the franchise, I just want to voice that this situation and the following statement made me doubt Failbetter:

  • as game designers, when they decided to make RNG challenges more complicated and annoying instead of consistently playing to their strengths - the narrative;
  • as product managers, when they didn’t test the changes with players, implemented them anyway, and then left them on production despite literally admitting that they are not complete;
  • as community managers, when they decided to ignore the most active and engaged part of their community for the sin of being the most active and engaged;
  • as web developers, when they clearly implemented some code that is buggy and at the very least overloads their servers;
  • as businesspeople, giving a PR statement in which they admit they didn’t build this right because they don’t have the necessary resources??? as if this is a good excuse for delivering a bad experience to your users??? I’m honestly stumped by this part.[/quote]

This. I wouldn’t be able to compile such a comprehensive list of failures myself. I agree on all points.

[quote=Flyte][color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]On Wednesday we made a number of changes to outfits. One in particular has provoked a lot of discussion and controversy: the restrictions on changing outfits within storylets and certain game locations.

We’ve been following these discussions, and wanted to share some information about what we’d like to achieve in this area, and the changes we currently expect to make.

Goals

There are three things we’d like restrictions on outfit changing to achieve:

  1. Allowing us to create new gameplay challenges that are more varied, strategic and replayable.

  2. Giving worth to a greater variety of equipment. Previously, equipment with a best-in-slot bonus for a single stat was far more valuable than equipment with multiple good bonuses (with very limited exceptions).

  3. Reducing the amount of clicking involved in mechanically optimal play.

Plans

The current approach has achieved the first and second of these goals. However, we think it has not achieved the third, and that it has even made that aspect of the game somewhat worse.

The main reason for this is storylets the player can freely enter and leave. Previously players could switch their outfit while in that storylet; now they can do exactly the same thing, except they have to back out of the storylet first, switch their outfit, and then re-open it.

We think this is genuinely problematic, so we’re going to scale back the restrictions on outfit changing, so players can do this straightforwardly in a greater range of situations. That will happen sometime in the next few weeks.

We haven’t decided yet exactly what the new restrictions will be, but we can say that we won’t be completely removing them – that would put us back where we started in relation to the first and second goals. At the very least, we’ll be keeping restrictions on outfit change in some game locations – for instance, when you’re conducting a heist.

And of course, we’ll also be looking at places where outfit restrictions cause mischief for a specific story, like Flint or player marriage.

It’s also possible that we’ll add more free outfits, either for everyone or as things unlocked in the course of play. We’d expect to make a decision on this after we’ve scaled back the outfit changing restrictions and seen how they affect the game for a wide range of players.

We realise some players who enjoy heavy optimisation would still prefer us to remove restrictions on outfit changing altogether. We know we may not be able to convince you, or at least not right now, but there are a couple of points we’d like to make which we hope will make it easier to understand our perspective.

First, this style of play is not as widespread as it might sometimes seem from discussion in our community spaces.
We’ve consistently found that people play and enjoy Fallen London in a wide variety of ways, and that those who’re particularly invested in optimisation are more likely to participate frequently in forum (and now Discord) discussions.

Second, we think the long term benefits of these restrictions are not yet obvious, because we can’t overhaul all of Fallen London to take advantage of the new gameplay possibilities with our limited resources. Right now, we’re a team of 15 people split across four projects (Fallen London, the Sunless Skies Sovereign Edition, and two Secret Things). When we add functionality to enable new design possibilities, it takes time for us to create new stories that take full advantage of it, or to rework older ones.

It might be worth mentioning in this connection that when we introduced broad difficulty seven years ago, that change was considerably more unpopular. In the short term, it meant that players failed more challenges, and the bulk of the game’s content still hadn’t been designed to take advantage of the benefits it offered. However, it stopped being controversial quite quickly, and the design possibilities it opened up greatly improved the game.

[/color]
[color=rgb(194, 178, 128)]Finally, we’d like to thank everyone who has shared their feedback and thereby helped us to make Fallen London better.[/color][/quote]

Let’s translate it from polite-speak into proper English.

&quotWe thought it would be funny. Why bother with content, when you can restrict gameplay and call it an achievement?
Okay, it did result in challenge, it did result in different outfit optimisation. Also gameplay started to resemble running while shoe-tied - oh, dear, that’s the punchline! Why aren’t you laughing?

Oh, you want to walk straight? What a buch of sour-pusses! Okay, we’ll lift the restriction here and there. Maybe, we’re not sure, it was such a wonderful idea, after all.

No, we’re not rolling it back, that would mean we’ve done all this for nothing, and this simply cannot be, by definition. No, not at all.

Oh, and look, you’ve been abusing being unrestricted whole this time. Now, who’s the real baddie, sweetheart?

We’ll even throw some freebies we hoped to make strictly paid, don’t be so glum. {Well, chagrin aside, actually, they have right to make them all paid, they’re not taking away the slots existing, and they’re in a tough financial situation because of a a quarantine, so here’s that}.

Some of you do not want to laugh still? Screw you.
You know, people are different, some change outfits once a season.

Well, the truth is the game is not balanced for such a restriction, at all, and some parts are specifically written to use being non-restricted, but we have neither capacity nor particular desire to fix that. But this is not a cause to oppose this wonderful feature! Okay, new stories will be balanced, when we write them. Eventually. Maybe. If we remember about balance.

Look, we’ve done similar thing years ago! Though we had less content, shortage of workers and additional projects during that time and quickly overhauled the game, but it’s the principle that’s important!

Consider yourself lucky I deigned to answer your obnoxious whining, because I’m told to say something polite, whatever.&quot
edited by Aro Saren on 8/1/2020