Nanako
Posts: 536
1/24/2016
|
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?
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Arlong
Posts: 27
1/24/2016
|
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.
--
Arlong, the original, main, and default.
Varanasi, an Invisible Eminence who desires the magnificent treasures of the South.
Ingolstadt, an Extraordinary Mind who yearns the ultimate secrets of the North.
Reykjavik, a Persuasive lotus-eater who craves the greatest delights of the West.
Malacca, a Dangerous swashbuckler who seeks the grand adventures of the East.
|
|
|
+11
link
|
Kukapetal
Posts: 1449
1/24/2016
|
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?"
|
|
|
+9
link
|
navchaa
Posts: 561
1/26/2016
|
I've been a serial loiterer for a while and have exchanged many loitering encounters, including with Nanako. The main reason for doing so was to supplement my shadowy grind as there aren't so many interesting stories at that point. (I was constantly equipping the talkative rat for the War of Assassins/COC grind and the Affair of the Box one.)
I only sent loitering invitations to people who approached me to help with their menaces. It was a mutually beneficial exchange as those players were generally pre-POSI and not so keen on connected society. Also, I didn't initially notice the imbalance until I sent a few to my alts as loitering is indeed such an unpopular thing. Since then, I'd been careful to let my fellow loiterers know about this and they didn't seem to have any problem with it, though Nanako did comment that it didn't seem fair. Since we both invited the other for loitering, it evens out in the end.
Nanako - if you think I owe you some loitering, please go ahead and send them along. I don't keep track. (Well, I could always go through my email notifications if I wanted to, but this is just a game and I'd rather just do the right thing by you and make sure everyone has a good time.)
The imbalance is that the sender will receive 2 notes as long as he already has no more than 22, together with the MW/Connected: Society penalty. (Has anyone calculated whether the penalty is equal for both sender and receiver?). The receiver will get just 1 note, as long as he already has no more than 11.
I think it's right to keep this imbalance, mainly because of the risks involved. The sender will need to spend an action to initiate the invitation, and has no control over when the action is accepted, if at all. So yes, he could waste an action only to have it cancelled at no action cost to the receiver, or have it accepted at a crucial point before TTH and lose enough MW to suffer a penalty to his Notability as well. The receiver can choose exactly when to accept, and (drunken clicking notwithstanding) won't have the TTH/MW/Notability problem.
I don't see the receiver cap of 11 to be a problem as the receiver can always use up the notes before accepting the invitation. The sender cap of 22 is fine as it stops people from spamming the loitering invite too much. I think this sender cap also applies for chess, sparring and coffee.
P.S. I have recently achieved an Invisible Eminence and won't need to loiter for a long while. I will merely control things from my lair using my new found proteges.
--
Paramount Presence (London's Marrow 2, London's Nerves 2, London’s Sinew 3, London’s Blood 3) and mercenary Notary
Married to Myrto :: Exchanging Surprise Packages with anyone interested :: Exchanging cat boxes with Kitty Rambunctious
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/navchaa
|
|
|
+9
link
|
MrBurnside
Posts: 188
1/24/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
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.
I actually think that there are two different reasons that you're overlooking:
1) As mentioned up-thread, this is something that can be handled player-side. There are a large number of asymmetrical social actions in the game and I suspect this was intentional to force it to be handled player-side. In other words: to force greater involvement from both players in what they do and don't involve themselves in. It encourages a “good-neighbor” policy, where people are encouraged to accept less profitable actions in order to gain goodwill towards their own invitations later. In a related, if unconnected point, I suspect it helps with retention when more experienced players can make magnanimous gestures towards the less experienced. This is also one of the reasons forums do so much to foster retention.
2) It encourages players to make multiple alts and, thus, to experience more of the game. If writing and production staff are the largest part of operating costs, then it makes sense to want players to get as much of that experience as possible. The more options and choices a player gets from an alt the more of an investment that player will have in the world of Fallen London. This investment helps encourage Exceptional Friendship and the purchase of Fate.
The next bit isn't really a reason, it's just related to something Nanako said earlier in the thread:
I really don't think the game can be meaningfully separated into social/nonsocial or single/multiplayer segments very easily. The amount of effect that social actions have on the single player experience defies that separation. And the needs that are created in single player are the engine that drives the social aspects of this game. Particularly with the Exceptional Rose coming up, I don't think that there is justification to thinking of them less as linked, but still separate, systems, but, rather as entangled or overlapping systems.
edited by MrBurnside on 1/25/2016
edited by MrBurnside on 1/26/2016
|
|
|
+8
link
|
TheThirdPolice
Posts: 609
1/25/2016
|
EDIT: I didn't notice there was a second page, so you may find my babbling dull.
I don't understand what's disturbing about an unbalanced social option. You can straight up poison another player and lie about what you're doing. I'm not sure why you're okay with that but not okay with an "unfair" positive trade that both players agree too. Maybe boxed cats and photographer investigations are more convincing comparisons for you, since those are also "positive" actions that many people don't want to receive.
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?
It should be different from the equivalent social actions, just for variety's sake. It should be accessible by anyone. It should have relatively minor effects. (This design succeeds on all of these fronts.) I'd need to put in more thought about how attractive the option should be to players at different stages. (I'm not sure whether this design hits the right spot at high levels.)
It should make it easy for an experienced player to help out a newbie. This is where I don't like the Waves choice, since it puts POSIs into an awkward position. (Awkward delays and/or conversations that make newbies feel guilty or confuse them with mechanics they don't need to care about.) But that's an issue with the specific penalty, not inequality of benefits.
It would be very easy to justify most choices with flavor (especially as it doesn't need to be called Loitering if I'm starting from scratch), so that wouldn't be a major factor.
edited by TheThirdPolice on 1/25/2016
--
Excessive Corpse & Tender to Irreal Ravens
Lover of Flawed Souls
And with especial pride, Worst Screwup of the Decade!
|
|
|
+8
link
|
Kittenpox
Posts: 869
1/24/2016
|
I apologise in advance for any snark, but...
Nanako wrote:
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.
I don't get what you mean by "a conflict of interest", here.
If you're concerned that it's unequal, you can talk with the person be like "I want to get HSWN, let's send each other Loitering requests", 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.
Nanako wrote:
This seems absurd, what's the reasoning for this?
What would you propose instead? How much does it actually matter?
--
Kittenpox
Current [Fabulous Diamond] count: Twenty-Five (of 50). Halfway there! ^_^
Metaphysical Caprice: 11.
-
Currently: Returned to the Neath, and regaining my footing in this place. :-)
NO PLANT BATTLES PLEASE.
|
|
|
+8
link
|
Kittenpox
Posts: 869
1/24/2016
|
feedback@failbettergames.com
--
Kittenpox
Current [Fabulous Diamond] count: Twenty-Five (of 50). Halfway there! ^_^
Metaphysical Caprice: 11.
-
Currently: Returned to the Neath, and regaining my footing in this place. :-)
NO PLANT BATTLES PLEASE.
|
|
|
+7
link
|
Kaigen
Posts: 530
1/24/2016
|
To echo Mr. Burnside, there are many social actions in this game which give lopsided rewards or else skew probabilities heavily in one player's favor. Enough that I would conclude that this is a deliberate design choice. Inviting an acquaintance to dinner and treating your sweetheart to an evening also give much more to the inviter than the invitee. Like other posters, I strongly suspect that this is to encourage reciprocity. I would also hazard a guess that this also recognizes that the inviter needs an added incentive to go through the effort of picking out a contact and initiating the action. A player who merely passively accepts whatever invitations gains less than one who is actively making new contacts and forging new connections.
--
Just a simple doctor with a chess habit. Publisher of The Flit Dispatch.
"One must remember that the impossible is, alas, always possible."
-Jacques Derrida
|
|
|
+7
link
|
Passionario
Posts: 777
1/25/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
To everyone else reading this thread, i ask you to try the following thought experiment for the moment.
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?
I would ensure that this action involves actually hastily scrawling a warning note.
--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
|
|
|
+7
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
1/24/2016
|
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.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
+6
link
|
Grenem
Posts: 2067
1/24/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
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
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
--
Married!:http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/takuza
I will accept all social actions that do not consume free evenings- and i will provide patronage to anyone who requests it, though it will be split between all requesters.
On psudeo-hiatus. Will be inactive and active and fluctuate without warning.
Grinding Favors without cards: http://community.failbettergames.com/topic22266-storylet-favors-grinding.aspx
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Kittenpox
Posts: 869
1/24/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
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
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
--
Kittenpox
Current [Fabulous Diamond] count: Twenty-Five (of 50). Halfway there! ^_^
Metaphysical Caprice: 11.
-
Currently: Returned to the Neath, and regaining my footing in this place. :-)
NO PLANT BATTLES PLEASE.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
metasynthie
Posts: 645
1/24/2016
|
Multiplayer coordination problems are harder -- requiring more skill and communication to coordinate, and perhaps more interesting for it -- if they are not straightforwardly tit-for-tat. If there's some risk involved, which there is in the case of accepting an invitation to loiter suspiciously. Your best reason for accepting that invite is in the hopes that the favor will be reciprocated, in which case it becomes an equal transaction for both sides. In digital games, computers can always ensure that transactions are equal, but this isn't necessarily the most interesting thing to do. A lot of Failbetter's multiplayer mechanics are based on the idea of trust, collaboration, and betrayal (which has to be a possibility for trust to feel meaningful, and not simply automated). Similarly, other multiplayer games leave space for backstabbing, betrayal and so forth -- the designers of World of Warcraft have talked at length, for instance, about why they chose not to completely, efficiently automate the division of loot in dungeons and raids. They could have done so; they left it up to players instead, with the possibility of strife, bickering, betrayal, and crime. This philosophy goes back a long way in multiplayer online game design. Not all games have to be about conflict and trust/betrayal, but if that's the kind of game you're interested in, then you have to leave some jagged edges that aren't perfectly equal and automatic.
I'm sure we could think of more complex multiplayer interactions around Hastily Scrawled Warning Notes, with betrayal and Constables and Shadowy challenges and so forth; this particular social interaction is extremely minimalist (and dates back to the very early months of the game, I think) but its potential lopsidedness is definitely something I'd keep. In other words, there should be a "conflict of interest" -- if anything needs patching, it's the fact that the conflict isn't clearly stated and that players might not know that inviter gets 2, invitee gets 1.
edited by metasynthie on 1/24/2016
--
Positively antique
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/metasynthie
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Pyrodinium
Posts: 639
1/24/2016
|
I think this was raised up a few weeks ago at the feedback forum and I do agree that loitering should be less punishing than the other stats. I think making it the same as its sibling invites like Chess and Sparring is good enough IMO, that is somewhat luck-based and stat-based yet without getting MW or Connected loss.
Then again, Criminal activity are quite menace inducing. Just getting favors.
Anyways, while we're waiting for FBG to look on it. I think the best "band-aid" is to invite the player for coffee. It won't restore Connected:Society but at least MW isn't that hard hit.
--
My profiles: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Pyrodinium
(A Monster hunter on the hunt of his twin brother's killer. Overprotective dad of his twin's daughter)
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Rudolph~of~Taured
(an indeterminate person of potentially rubbery lineage)
* All social actions except photographers and loitering welcome!
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
1/24/2016
|
Grenem wrote:
You'll note, however, that for all the other ones the "competent" one learns less, not more. If sending the invite makes you more competent, why are you getting the better loot?
I know this is a silly discussion, but i really do think this is a silly bit of gameplay.
It's not competence, it's the fact you're the person with the plan. You've staked out the place, time, and purpose of the loitering. What you learn helps you towards some very specific goal, while what your partner learns only helps them in a general way.
edited by Anne Auclair on 1/24/2016
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Estelle Knoht
Posts: 1751
1/25/2016
|
Suspicion replacing MW drop from loitering would be neat if you ask me, but probably not everyone will agree.
If you are getting stuck at Big Score (that's the most painful plateau this game has, anyway), I suggest people just ignore grinding Casing via Big Score and instead stick to Stealing Painting for Topsy King for Casing nowadays - you get 1 extra CP of Shadowy per action, which adds up to an extra 20 CP of Shadowy per 30 CP of Casing, the check is easier and failure less punishing.
--
Estelle Knoht, a juvenile, unreliable and respectable lady.
I currently do not accept any catbox, cider, suppers, calling cards or proteges.
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Gonen
Posts: 817
1/24/2016
|
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
--
 The Ashen Anesthesiologist - Paramount Londoner
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness.
The long journey to eccentricity:
On March 10th, 2018, reached 15 on all quirks, simultaneously. The Quirky Anesthesiologist
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
1/24/2016
|
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
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Arlong
Posts: 27
1/24/2016
|
Kukapetal wrote:
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?"
Oh. Well in that case it truly is a mystery.
--
Arlong, the original, main, and default.
Varanasi, an Invisible Eminence who desires the magnificent treasures of the South.
Ingolstadt, an Extraordinary Mind who yearns the ultimate secrets of the North.
Reykjavik, a Persuasive lotus-eater who craves the greatest delights of the West.
Malacca, a Dangerous swashbuckler who seeks the grand adventures of the East.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Pyrodinium
Posts: 639
1/25/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
Another thought has come to mind.
Why the Making Waves penalty at all, for anyone involved?
IT seems to be established that Making Waves is gained from doing things that are interesting, not merely respectable. As i recall, there are quite a few opportunities that cause you to gain both Making Waves and Scandal simultaneously, because even offending high society gets you noticed.
And perhaps more to the point, it can be gained from heists - there's a precedent for gaining it from criminal activity. In that context it might be interpreted as infamy more than fame, but it is nevertheless being noticed.
Back to loitering, the concept of being seen associating with criminals or doing suspicious things, it certainly makes sense to damage your reputation in society. But it is also a scandalous thing to do, so why should it make you less famous?
I agree. It doesn't make sense either.
But I'll try to play Devil's advocate. All MW gains seems to revolve on one thing: being seen with other people in public. Loitering seems to be the opposite of this.
Nanako wrote:
I would propose that, rather than penalising MW, loitering should give Suspicion to the players involved. It is, after all, SUSPICIOUS loitering, no?
Don't give them ideas  What if they add Wounds to Sparring and Nightmares to Chess?
--
My profiles: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Pyrodinium
(A Monster hunter on the hunt of his twin brother's killer. Overprotective dad of his twin's daughter)
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Rudolph~of~Taured
(an indeterminate person of potentially rubbery lineage)
* All social actions except photographers and loitering welcome!
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Nanako
Posts: 536
1/25/2016
|
Another thought has come to mind.
Why the Making Waves penalty at all, for anyone involved?
IT seems to be established that Making Waves is gained from doing things that are interesting, not merely respectable. As i recall, there are quite a few opportunities that cause you to gain both Making Waves and Scandal simultaneously, because even offending high society gets you noticed.
And perhaps more to the point, it can be gained from heists - there's a precedent for gaining it from criminal activity. In that context it might be interpreted as infamy more than fame, but it is nevertheless being noticed.
Back to loitering, the concept of being seen associating with criminals or doing suspicious things, it certainly makes sense to damage your reputation in society. But it is also a scandalous thing to do, so why should it make you less famous?
I would propose that, rather than penalising MW, loitering should give Suspicion to the players involved. It is, after all, SUSPICIOUS loitering, no?
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Pyrodinium
Posts: 639
1/25/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
Pyrodinium wrote:
Don't give them ideas What if they add Wounds to Sparring and Nightmares to Chess?
Well nightmares to chess wouldn't make much sense unless you were playing with Scintillack pieces. And given how common and hard to remove, nightmares is, i think that would be a bit punishing.
Wounds for sparring though, would make a lot of sense, i'd definitely approve of that. I can barely remember the last time i got wounded, i pass all dangerous checks blindfolderd and with both hands tied behind my back nowadays. More wounds would give more reasons to buy sips of hesperidian cider from other users too <3
Just because you aren't suffering from removing certain menaces doesn't mean that it's okay to apply said rule to other players. Using that logic, I can handwave your issue with Suspicion because that's unsporting.
--
My profiles: http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Pyrodinium
(A Monster hunter on the hunt of his twin brother's killer. Overprotective dad of his twin's daughter)
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Rudolph~of~Taured
(an indeterminate person of potentially rubbery lineage)
* All social actions except photographers and loitering welcome!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Parelle
Posts: 1084
1/26/2016
|
I'll actually go in to say that I find Nightmares now one of the easiest to remove as a POSI and Scandal the biggest pain. And the suggestion of adding suspicion is particularly a problem because you're punished if you hit the menace area too often.
--
Parelle, Lady Joseph Marlen. The Singular Librarian. A Midnighter, a Player of the Marvelous.
pages from a dusty bookshop: a badly updated FL changelog | Useful Guidance and Explanations
|
|
|
+2
link
|
dov
Posts: 2580
1/25/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
Well nightmares to chess wouldn't make much sense unless you were playing with Scintillack pieces. And given how common and hard to remove, nightmares is, i think that would be a bit punishing. It makes more sense when you consider the whole A Game of Chess dream/nightmare sequence.
--
 Want a sip of Hesperidean Cider? Send me a request in-game. Here's an_ocelot's guide how.
(Most social actions are welcome. Please no requests to Loiter Suspiciously and no investigations of the Affluent Photographer)
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Grenem
Posts: 2067
1/25/2016
|
Nanako wrote:
Grenem wrote:
as it is, you get about 10.4 points shadowy by constantly sending these requests.
The person who sends the request doesn't get any shadowy cp, unless i'm mistaken?
you get zero by sending them
I was doing the second chances -> CP conversion. 5 second chances -> average of 26 stat points. OFC, I forgot to factor in the action to cash in, so it might be closer to about 7.7 stat points per action.
--
Married!:http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/takuza
I will accept all social actions that do not consume free evenings- and i will provide patronage to anyone who requests it, though it will be split between all requesters.
On psudeo-hiatus. Will be inactive and active and fluctuate without warning.
Grinding Favors without cards: http://community.failbettergames.com/topic22266-storylet-favors-grinding.aspx
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Kukapetal
Posts: 1449
1/24/2016
|
Again, I'm pretty sure the OP is wondering why both participants don't get two notes. Is there a reason for it?
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Grenem
Posts: 2067
1/24/2016
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
Grenem wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
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
Does it? planning to loiter isn't precicely rocket science, i don't think. A good plan shouldn't increase the benefit.
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.
You'll note, however, that for all the other ones the "competent" one learns less, not more. If sending the invite makes you more competent, why are you getting the better loot?
I know this is a silly discussion, but i really do think this is a silly bit of gameplay.
--
Married!:http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/takuza
I will accept all social actions that do not consume free evenings- and i will provide patronage to anyone who requests it, though it will be split between all requesters.
On psudeo-hiatus. Will be inactive and active and fluctuate without warning.
Grinding Favors without cards: http://community.failbettergames.com/topic22266-storylet-favors-grinding.aspx
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Grenem
Posts: 2067
1/24/2016
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
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
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.
--
Married!:http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/takuza
I will accept all social actions that do not consume free evenings- and i will provide patronage to anyone who requests it, though it will be split between all requesters.
On psudeo-hiatus. Will be inactive and active and fluctuate without warning.
Grinding Favors without cards: http://community.failbettergames.com/topic22266-storylet-favors-grinding.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Nanako
Posts: 536
1/24/2016
|
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.
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
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Nanako
Posts: 536
1/24/2016
|
Kittenpox wrote:
What would you propose instead? How much does it actually matter?
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
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Nanako
Posts: 536
1/24/2016
|
Kukapetal wrote:
Again, I'm pretty sure the OP is wondering why both participants don't get two notes. Is there a reason for it?
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
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Nanako
Posts: 536
1/25/2016
|
Pyrodinium wrote:
Don't give them ideas What if they add Wounds to Sparring and Nightmares to Chess?
Well nightmares to chess wouldn't make much sense unless you were playing with Scintillack pieces. And given how common and hard to remove, nightmares is, i think that would be a bit punishing.
Wounds for sparring though, would make a lot of sense, i'd definitely approve of that. I can barely remember the last time i got wounded, i pass all dangerous checks blindfolderd and with both hands tied behind my back nowadays. More wounds would give more reasons to buy sips of hesperidian cider from other users too <3
--
Sunless Skies needs engine and speed control mechanics. Have a look at my design proposal for implementing it
http://community.failbettergames.com/topic25687-a-design-for-engines.aspx
|
|
|
+1
link
|