Zack Oak
Posts: 205
7/4/2017
|
Realism about money politics in a game where we have women voting in Victorian England and hanging out with squid people is silly. Why not let there be some more progressive approaches to democracy than that? It's a game, let it be fun.
--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Anne Auclair
Posts: 2215
7/4/2017
|
Fixers are supposed to be all about Victorian corruption though. You know, putting in the fix.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Anne%20Auclair
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Sara Hysaro
Moderator
Posts: 4514
7/4/2017
|
Dudebro Pyro wrote:
Kukapetal wrote:
Dudebro Pyro wrote:
Why would anyone go North? Why would anyone play the Wry Functionary story?
Not to derail the topic but I don't remember the Wry Functionary story being particularly punishing or frustrating (even if he did thwart my attempts to get in his pants :P )
It does cost 15 Fate (IIRC), and brings absolutely no mechanical advantage.
Sara Hysarowhile wrote:
still not being such a huge factor that elections are won based on who has the most wealthy supporters willing to invest in this sort of thing
Would that be a bad thing though? It's certainly a big factor in real-life elections, and in-game everything is so shady that having the election result end up being decided by who was richest would actually be extremely amusing and add a touch of authenticity in my opinion. You also get the usual caveats: not everyone can be bribed, some people will take advantage of bribes and carousel around between candidates milking all the bribers, etc.
It'd definitely leave a negative impression on me if it were so imbalanced as to be a significant factor. I don't mind losing with the current mechanics because at least I can be 100% certain that the winning candidate was unambiguously the most popular choice. I still feel a little sad that I don't get to see the continuation of whichever narrative captivated me, but clearly the majority had another opinion on what would be interesting. Add unbalanced bribes into the mix to snatch victory away from the popular choice I happened to be supporting and I'd feel borderline cheated, especially if in my frustration I joined in the bribery and invested a bunch of resources only to still come up short.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Sara%20Hysaro
Please do not send SMEN, cat boxes, or Affluent Reporter requests. All other social actions are welcome.
Are you a Scarlet Saint? Send a message my way to be added to the list.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Zack Oak
Posts: 205
7/4/2017
|
Anne Auclair wrote:
Fixers are supposed to be all about Victorian corruption though. You know, putting in the fix.
The problem with that being that playing a fixer simply means being an inefficient medic, not a corrupting influence. So the only real money/corruption going on is with campaigners or alt accounts.
--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/4/2017
|
A big part of "election" influence isn't just how much you bribed people. It also represents your character's sway over the vast hordes of NPCs in London. So technically, one could say the "popular" candidate among players wasn't actually the popular vote if another candidate's supporters managed to win via influence.
...Though with the way influence works, the popular candidate among players is still likely to win. It's not that hard to max out influence in two weeks.
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Hotshot Blackburn
Posts: 110
7/4/2017
|
From previous experience with this type of thing, I'm calling it as unpopular and controversial and financially better for Failbetter if they don't pursue this train of gameplay. Faction-versus-faction combat is not particularly new to Fallen London or other online text-based games, and there as well as here it's been a source of controversy for those who want to engage versus those who don't want to engage versus those who want everyone to engage.
The current experiment forces mobbing on players who want to experience certain seasonal texts from minigsmes in Fallen London. The combat takes the form of menaces and prevention from being able to experience that text. There is no way to control who mobs you (so rando's can spam you) and there is no ability to be defensive against mobs (no way to prevent them from targeting you or punish them for targeting you). Unlike other campaign elements, you cannot refuse a mob social action. If the other player decides they want to interact with you, there is no way to shut them down or block them.
This discourages people from participating in the game (see everyone who switched from Agitator to another role) and discourages engagement with seasonal features and single-player aspects. Disengaging with the game means players aren't as likely to spend money on it, which hurts Failbetter financially. i do not therefore see this system continuing next year or even the remainder of this election in its current form.
Options for changing it including not locking players out of content when mobbed but rather only sticking to autofire menaces, reducing the costs for getting rid of a mob or lowering your menaces to 0 by other means removing the mob, and/or creating a defensive option for players to prevent mobs from targeting them (say, a grind that gives a Time-limited Quality for which 0 is required for a mob to target you). Opt-in only or at the least an easy opt-out. And no, "don't play storylets that offer story and lore as rewards" or "don't engage in limited time story events" do not count as acceptable opt-out reasons.
--
Hotshot Blackburn: Messidor, Aspirant to the Calendar Council. Paramount Presence. Seeker of the Name. A firm believer in kindness, solidarity, and sufficient use of force and firepower.
|
|
|
+8
link
|
Meridiem
Posts: 7
7/4/2017
|
It's not for me. I don't like being pulled into social actions which I didn't agree to in advance - and I didn't agree to this when I chose to be a Fixer. It feels like the mechanics have been changed on me halfway through the process, and I will, regretfully, stop doing Investigations and Flash Lays for a few days now just to avoid having to deal with this. That seems to be the only way I can opt out right now since I'm not willing to raise my menaces just so I will be out of social contact for a day, and I don't yet have access to areas of the game where I would be out of reach.
I get that for other people this new social mechanic is fun. However I feel like an introvert who's been happily playing in a way that is right for me, being able to choose the level of contact I want, but is now made vulnerable to being griefed or trolled by intrusive persons unknown. As an introvert, I would rather, with regret, stop playing/doing the fun thing I was enjoying and protectively withdraw than be intruded on that way. This is not fun for me, and I wish that the mechanics had been implemented in a way that gave people a choice to opt-in to stuff like this, rather than having to opt-out by withdrawing for several days of the election. After all there are a variety of players and playing styles here; it is not unusual that some people don't enjoy having mobs sicced on them by strangers.
|
|
|
+9
link
|
Kylestien
Posts: 749
7/4/2017
|
I don't like it either... but Failbetter have been very clear about how they are doing it for a test of their system. My advice is deal with it for a day and then inform Failbetter you did not like it at ALL. Alternativly, do not play only for that day. It is "Only" for 24 hours.
I admit that prehaps my advice does not come off as helpful, and I really do not like it, but I can't in good faith tell FB to stop it if it's for their tests of the system. DX
--
I will accept all actions, though I hold the right to refuse for my own reasons. However, if you explain WHY you send me a harmful action like Loitering or Dantes,And I feel the reason good, I will consider it more. http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kylestien
Persuasive patron. You want a lesson, send me a message asking for one.
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Carns
Posts: 30
7/4/2017
|
Isn't it possible to opt-out with the "Set profile as private" option? Unless I misunderstood it or there's something wrong with it, it should prevent anyone from having you as a contact unless they already know your name or you add them.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
A Dimness
Posts: 613
7/4/2017
|
Or, alternatively, you could challenge every goddamned agitator in London to mob you, and send angry and disresputable calling cards back.
Naturally, it'd help to have a fixer or two at your beck and call.
--
A truth so strange it can only be lied into existence
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Meradine Heidenreich
Posts: 468
7/4/2017
|
Kylestien wrote:
I don't like it either... but Failbetter have been very clear about how they are doing it for a test of their system. My advice is deal with it for a day and then inform Failbetter you did not like it at ALL. Alternatively, do not play only for that day. It is "Only" for 24 hours.
Except it isn't; to avoid getting the quality that opens a player up to mobbing, you had to stop election activities (FL, investigating) from Monday for three days.
This rather reminds me of FB using their members as guinea pigs. Didn't approve of that either.
--
https://www.fallenlondon.com/profile/Meradine%20Heidenreich
The Starveling kit
Gobbled up the bit
of cheese on my tray ..
"O Weh!"
No plant battles, please.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Isaac Zienfried
Posts: 364
7/4/2017
|
Sometimes I wonder how long it'll be until people say we should remove qualities checks for options because wasting actions on failures isn't fun...
--
Isaac Zienfried, 'The Vacillating Belligerent.'
A gentleman of complicated loyalties, complicated morality, and complicated goals.
But really, it's hard to keep things simple down here!
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Kylestien
Posts: 749
7/4/2017
|
Meradine Heidenreich wrote:
Kylestien wrote:
I don't like it either... but Failbetter have been very clear about how they are doing it for a test of their system. My advice is deal with it for a day and then inform Failbetter you did not like it at ALL. Alternatively, do not play only for that day. It is "Only" for 24 hours.
Except it isn't; to avoid getting the quality that opens a player up to mobbing, you had to stop election activities (FL, investigating) from Monday for three days.
This rather reminds me of FB using their members as guinea pigs. Didn't approve of that either.
Except you only get it once. Keep doing the things, take one hit for the day (I'm sure most can deal with a small gain in wounds or whatever) then don't do anymore till the day is over. Yes, you take a hit, but that way you can still do the days and have minimal effect.
Alternativly, (and I'm not certain how effective this would be) put "not interested in agitation" as your signiture for the day. I cannot garanteee annoyance from other non forum player but there's a chance it might limit agitation from people here.
Or prehaps make a "Not interested in Agitation" thread and post it so people will hopefull you and others? (Or if someone is a jerk know who to target alas)
edited by Kylestien on 7/4/2017
--
I will accept all actions, though I hold the right to refuse for my own reasons. However, if you explain WHY you send me a harmful action like Loitering or Dantes,And I feel the reason good, I will consider it more. http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Kylestien
Persuasive patron. You want a lesson, send me a message asking for one.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Mr Sables
Posts: 597
7/4/2017
|
Zack Oak wrote:
I have found "if you don't like it, don't play it" to be the least helpful or reasonable response to critique I can think of. It doesn't show any desire to hear what problems people have, it's a shutdown of dialogue, and unhelpful in a very obnoxious way.
Even as a solution, it's not really a solution . . .
I mean not everyone checks the forums or even clicks the banners, and it's been established that the forum-goers are a smaller minority of the wider pool of players, and that's not to mention people on different time-zones, or accidental clicks, or just mixing up days, or any number of issues where a person might end up playing without meaning to and ending up on the receiving end of the "Day of Agitation" . . . unless there are in-game warnings to say flash lays and the like which cause "notoriety", I suspect a lot of angry emails from members the following day.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
ClearFavourite
Posts: 50
7/4/2017
|
Zack Oak wrote:
I'm pointing out the inherent flaw in giving agitators yet another advantage, and further making fixers suffer. If a fixer wants to advance, now they become twice as vulnerable, while campaigners circumvent the risk entirely through short stories. Why would anyone play a fixer at this rate?
I'd kind of like the ability to have agitators protect allies with mobs as well as throwing them at enemies. Or at least have some way to deal with mobs attacking your friends.
--
The Boisterous Bounty-Hunter
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Charlotte_de_Witte
Posts: 360
7/4/2017
|
Sara Hysaro wrote:
Anne Auclair wrote:
Sara Hysaro wrote:
I brought up SMEN because there's a social action in which you reach out to non-Seekers to make them one, with a ton of Nightmares on top of it. That's pretty rough, but you can always get out of Seeking and handle Nightmares in your own time. Spontaneously switching candidates via a Fixer-specific bribery option would be quite a bit different, especially if it comes with the same hit to your Career as the non-bribe switches.
It would be a really big bribe. Essentially, it's the player deciding to cash out. There is a not insignificant minority who actively seek bribes, but find little success because its currently on the honor system. And sometimes scandals shake people's faith in their candidate and, if they're going to switch, they might as well get a payday.
I dunno; it'd have to be very carefully balanced to avoid indiscriminate spamming while still not being such a huge factor that elections are won based on who has the most wealthy supporters willing to invest in this sort of thing. I get that there's a demand, but it's a tricky thing that really does need to be done right.
Just as an idea, but wouldn't the best bribe a Fixer could offer another player to switch sides be the ability to change candidate without (or with less) loss of career progression? Guessing that that's probably the largest reason most would not want to change over? Not at all sure how that might be able to work on a practical level though?
As for the Day of Agitation, I'm a little ambivalent myself (but probably only because I've hit my career cap). I can really understand why some people are so unhappy though. As a question to any Agitators about. Have you found it possible at all to hide successfully from mobs inside of Flash Lays themselves? (Leap into a new flash lay as soon as you've finished your last) Or is that just too tricky to time right to pull off??
--
"Do one thing for me, Sredni Vashtar."
Social actions welcome. Only, send me dupes if you need help with the Affluent Photographer please, I like the bats! [And boxed kitties, and extreme gardening]- Thank-you!
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Charlotte%20de%20Witte
|
|
|
+4
link
|
lady ciel
Posts: 2548
7/4/2017
|
I've only got one character playing as an Agitator. The trouble with going straight back into Flash Lays is the menaces - everything except wounds needs to be low and playing one can raise your menaces so that you can't just go straight back in. Apart from that you can only target someone who hasn't already got a mob after them so actually catching someone to target can be tricky as well.
--
ciel
Sorry RL means I am not a very active player at the moment. No social actions unless you are prepared to wait and definitely no sparring or other mult-action things.
No Calling Cards or boxed cats please. Will take dupes on the affluent photographers. Other social invitations welcome. Parabolan Kittens usually available, send me an in-game social action saying you want one and I will get one to you as soon as possible.
storynexus name - reveurciel
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
7/4/2017
|
Throwing in my two 0.01 Echoes, I dislike the mechanic behind the Day of Agitation. It is very much one of "if you want to play, be prepared to be attacked." I don't mind mixing it up with other players (I was quite fond of K&C ... or would have been, if it existed ... >_> ) , but being able to be targeted by some random chump just because I pursue a grind leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. One great thing about FL is the absence of this.
At least it is only one day, and only effects POSIs, who are able to dispatch mobs with relative ease.
edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 7/4/2017
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
dov
Posts: 2580
7/4/2017
|
Charlotte_de_Witte wrote:
Just as an idea, but wouldn't the best bribe a Fixer could offer another player to switch sides be the ability to change candidate without (or with less) loss of career progression? Guessing that that's probably the largest reason most would not want to change over? Not at all sure how that might be able to work on a practical level though?
That's an incredible idea, actually!
This should come with some cost to the Fixer (in terms of actions, materials, etc.) to avoid abuse, but this would bring much flexibility to the system!
--
 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)
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Zack Oak
Posts: 205
7/4/2017
|
Isaac Zienfried wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how long it'll be until people say we should remove qualities checks for options because wasting actions on failures isn't fun...
Dude, really? Look, there’s a level of reasonable disagreement with someone's stance on an issue and there's completely reducing it to snark. Not cool, man.
--
Roland Banning, The Ambitious Operative (Profile)
Tumblr RP Account
Ask me about the Delicious Friends RP group!
Open for social actions (no cats or photographers, please. Currently taking a break from K&C.)
|
|
|
+4
link
|