Loitering creates a conflict of interest

Fallen London
1

I’ve just discovered something today that disturbs me a little.

The social action for inviting a friend to loiter suspiciously is problematic:
http://fallenlondon.wikia.com/wiki/Invite_a_friend_to_join_you_in_something_rather_shadowy.

The inviter recieves 2x Hastily Scrawled Warning notes, a penalty to society and to making waves.
The invitee recieves only ONE note, and the same penalties. They also recieve a single change point to their shadowy, which is barely worth mentioning, there are a million better ways to level it. That one note also comes with a lower note limit, too

There is no upfront cost to sending an invite except for an action. And the reciever requires an action to accept it too, so that equation is irrelevant.

One player is getting a free extra note out of this, and that creates a conflict of interest. anyone who realises, will want to be the inviter, and not the invitee.
This seems absurd, what’s the reasoning for this?

2

Most likely because loitering suspiciously is a very unbecoming thing to do by society’s standards.

But in all honesty, if you’re trying to improve your Shadowy then you’re better off finding a patron, followed by stacking up casing in the Flit and selling those information to your fellow criminals. Or do what I did and absolutely ignore MW and Society connection.

3

I’m pretty sure the question was more along the lines of “both players risk the same amount but one gets a lesser reward. Why?”

4

I apologise in advance for any snark, but…

I don’t get what you mean by &quota conflict of interest&quot, here.

If you’re concerned that it’s unequal, you can talk with the person be like &quotI want to get HSWN, let’s send each other Loitering requests&quot, so both benefit. A bit of cooperation means nobody feels that they’ve missed out.

Alternately (1.), you decide that you only want the most profitable result from this - and send a bunch of social actions to someone else inviting them to Loiter. They realise that you never accept their own social actions (because less profitable), and wait for you to do so. When you decide that no you’d rather get that extra +1HSWN by sending more social actions rather than accepting theirs, they choose to Decline every social action you’ve sent them and make a note not to interact with you again.

Alternately (2.), FailBetterGames decides to remove one HSWN so that both players only gain 1. Some illusion of equality occurs, and nobody is happy about the change.

Neither of these alternative approaches makes things better.

What would you propose instead? How much does it actually matter?

5

Oh. Well in that case it truly is a mystery.

6

Again, I’m pretty sure the OP is wondering why both participants don’t get two notes. Is there a reason for it?

7

[quote=Kittenpox]
What would you propose instead? How much does it actually matter?[/quote]

It matters a great deal, because i’d argue shadowy has all the highest-risk options that you really want to use a second chance for because failing is especially damaging. Like spending five actions at once on casing, or the massive difference in casing loss from ToaPC when you succeed or fail

What i’d propose instead, i have a few ideas. Any one of the following

  1. The invitee recieves a much higher shadowy gain. Say 5-10 cp
  2. The invitee doesn’t use an action to accept
  3. The invitee suffers no penalties to society/MW
  4. The INVITER suffers no penalties, but the invitee is the one who recieves two notes, inviter only gets one

I like option 4 best, really. Say the inviter is mastermind of the operation and they control things by choosing a place to loiter away from anyone they’re associated with. Or they wear a mask, and don’t inform the invitee about the necessity for such. The invitee suffers from the situation, but learns more from the experience as they’re assumed to be the junior

I think any of these would solve the problem nicely, and some of them would make it a more interesting and meaningful choice.
I like the idea of asymmetry in these matters, i just think that both sides of the equation should be balanced, at least in some situations. A high society debutante could do the inviting, while a player who doesn’t care about their reputation could be the invited one
edited by Nanako on 1/24/2016
edited by Nanako on 1/24/2016

8

not specificially, it’s more that i’m asking why it’s not balanced.

i think the difference in notes is reasonable, they were probably aiming to create an asymmetrical and interesting choice. FBG just messed up the balancing because 1cp of shadowy is not worth much

Perhaps it was more worthwhile in the past, when stat caps were lower, and just hasn’t been looked at since things changed

9

feedback@failbettergames.com

10

Well, since this game is meant for the long run, I believe making those stat increase easier is a mistake both for player and company. I do believe that is the reason christmas cards this year were nerffed down.
Also, not every opportunity cart or storylet or choice is the optimal thing to do. By nature, there will be ALWAYS something sub-optimal and you would ask “why not buff it up” even if EVERYTHING got buffed up.
I ignore this social action, as do many here. Some don’t and find it acceptable. That’s part of the great variety here in FL

11

With all due respect, I’m pretty sure Well-planned villainy doesn’t even require a Shadowy check, and the only other 5-action Casing gain I know of is Set your gang of hoodlums to business.
You’ve possibly levelled a bit, but considering two days ago you were at 69+Gear, that’s not even hitting the 119 Shadowy needed for ‘Very Modest’ (71%) odds when using hoodlums; and Thefts of Particular Character have ‘Shadowy 120’ challenges, requiring about 142 Shadowy for a 71% success chance.
If you’re constantly taking on stuff that you’re not even going to succeed at 3/4 of the time, of course you’re going to burn through second chance items as though there’s no tomorrow. By the time you hit 170 Shadowy, the risks you’ve mentioned are non-existent.

I wouldn’t normally suggest this (because generally I think it’s a dumb idea to power-level your attributes while you should have level-appropriate actions available), but:
Find a friend or two, loiter on street corners constantly, then use Tricks traps and treats in your Lodgings to get your base Shadowy up to at least 100-ish so that you’re vaguely close to the sort of prerequisites suitable for the content you insist on doing.
.
edited by Kittenpox on 1/24/2016

12

Not everything can be equal and not everything SHOULD be. Ultimately this is a single player game/narrative with light social aspects. There is little need for aggressive balancing, nerfing or buffing. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but it frankly doesn’t NEED to.

Whether you accept, send or do nothing is entirely up to you, and most importantly to your character. By squishing branches into equality, THEN you remove reason to play. THEN you remove reason to differ. After all, if everything is the same then the only difference is in the words themselves.

Others have tackled this topic with more eloquence than I, and likely fewer capitalized words. But play as you will. Just don’t insist that the game must be balanced to your taste.

13

[quote=Schmidt]Not everything can be equal and not everything SHOULD be. Ultimately this is a single player game/narrative with light social aspects. There is little need for aggressive balancing, nerfing or buffing. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but it frankly doesn’t NEED to.
[/quote]
You’re completely misunderstanding the situation though. Firstly, the part that i’m concerned about here is multiplayer content, not singleplayer.

I did not suggest that they should be the same, only that they should be more balanced. Read up a bit to find my suggestion post, where you’ll find i am in favour of keeping the asymmetry and of making the choice a more interesting one.

14

Trading connections for stat increases is already an existing mechanic though, and it typically offers a far higher exchange rate than this, without having to sacrifice Making Waves

I’m not asking for a buff, i’m asking for the choice to be made more interesting, balanced while remaining asymmetrical

Right now there’s one clearly better side of the deal to always be on

15

This seems like a dilemma best handled by the players. Like, if you have to ask someone to loiter suspiciously with you, then maybe you should make it clear that they can ask you to return the favor when needed. Or perhaps later you can send them a present: dead rats, a mystery box, a boxed cat. Something like that.

16

Hmm, i’m getting indiscrimately thumbed down again.

So far i’m seeing lots of defence of the status quo merely because it IS the status quo, i’ve seen nobody justify the current state of things.

Allow me, if you will for a moment, to argue against myself.
The best reason i can think of for the current state (aside from my theory at the end of this post ) is that it’s intentionally designed as a mechanic for screwing over other players, which would thematically fit with the criminal nature of the activity.

However if that is the intention, then it doesn’t seem to fit well either, the recipient does still benefit, just to a lesser degree. If this is the design goal then i still think changes could be made to enhance it, such as not giving the sender as much of a penalty, and perhaps transferring suspicion from sender to reciever, as a sort of framing job. There is a similar social action for tricking someone into taking your scandal, and it would be appropriate here.

that seems to be the best reason i can think of for that.

To everyone else reading this thread, i ask you to try the following thought experiment for the moment.

[b]Assume there was no existing social action for Hastily Scrawled Warning notes, and that you were tasked with designing it. How would you implement it, from scratch? What would you base the decisions on?

[/b].
edited by Nanako on 1/24/2016

17

[quote=Nanako]
Assume there was no existing social action for Hastily Scrawled Warning notes, and that you were tasked with designing it. How would you implement it, from scratch? What would you base the decisions on?
edited by Nanako on 1/24/2016[/quote]
Personally… I’d make it a challenge of shadowy comparison, like how the others work. Contest of pickpocketing, perhaps.

the person who wins gets no hastily scrawled warning notes, and roughly an echo in miscelanious loot, 1 point shadowy, as well as several points MW, as well as connections with either hell or revolutionaries. The person who loses gets 3 points suspicion, 3 hastily scrawled warning notes, and loses the same amount of MW the other person gained, as well as a bit of society and/or church connection.

This would make it higher-risk higher reward, and not optimal for rapid stat grinding, but good in small doses. it would also mean that both routes are pretty punishing, but shadowy doesn’t really have low-risk practice oppurtunities.

I think the asymetry is kinda silly, but a lot of the invites have that asymetry- it’s in my best interests to only have sparring bouts with those stronger than me, for instance. All of the others, it’s clearly better to lose unless you’re only after MW. This one doesn’t do the competition thing, which is a shame, as otherwise the design would be fine, and balanced with the others.

[also, on the topic of indiscriminately thumbed down, it’s entirely possible you’ve made a petty enemy who’s going through all your posts and just thumbing them all down, and it has nothing to do with the people in this thread.]

Now, given that we already have it, i’d make it work the way we already have, except who gets which reward is a contest of shadowy where loser gets the better reward.
edited by Grenem on 1/24/2016

18

I rather like the penalty as it actually makes you feel like you’re doing something shady and not the least bit respectable. It also makes sense that the person who planned this questionable loitering gets slightly more benefit.
edited by Anne Auclair on 1/24/2016

19

[quote=Anne Auclair]I rather like the penalty as it actually makes you feel like you’re doing something shady and not the least bit respectable. It also makes sense that the person who planned this questionable loitering gets slightly more benefit.
edited by Anne Auclair on 1/24/2016[/quote]
Does it? planning to loiter isn’t precicely rocket science, i don’t think. A good plan shouldn’t increase the benefit. I think it was supposed to have a challenge mechanic like the other three, but then it got dropped at the last second. as it is, you get about 10.4 points shadowy by constantly sending these requests.

20

[quote=Grenem][quote=Anne Auclair]I rather like the penalty as it actually makes you feel like you’re doing something shady and not the least bit respectable. It also makes sense that the person who planned this questionable loitering gets slightly more benefit.
edited by Anne Auclair on 1/24/2016[/quote]
Does it? planning to loiter isn’t precicely rocket science, i don’t think. A good plan shouldn’t increase the benefit.[/quote]
I meant that the person who plans the loiter knows a bit more about what’s going on and so gets more out of it, while whoever they’re bringing along is just doing a job. When you’re loitering I imagine you’re actually doing some really low level spying and casing, just as coffee is really low level socializing, sparring is low level fighting, and playing chess is a low level intellectual workout. People don’t like being spied on or robbed, so its not surprising you get a few funny looks.