Wednesday, June 09, 2021

Post Dynasty Discussion

How did the dynasty go?

I’m especially interested in people’s views on how the No Collaboration rule effected gameplay. Was it harder to be engaged?

Also curious how people felt the round structure went. Did people like the “do this around a certain time every day but don’t make it a strict 24/48 hours later thing so we don’t get drift” mechanic?

Comments

Clucky: HE/HIM

09-06-2021 04:35:30 UTC

One thing I think we definitely learned (or maybe relearned) is the dangers of starting the dynasty with a relatively complete game already in tact. Felt like that made new proposals relatively slow going. But there was plenty of room for people to make new proposals, and yet we didn’t see very many so I am curious what limited people from making more proposals.

lemonfanta: SHE/HER

09-06-2021 04:49:47 UTC

i had a hard time coming up with ideas, especially near the beginning of the dynasty; there was plenty of ideaspace in the theme, but the initial mechanics felt pretty limiting? in that they were clearly the core of the dynasty, the part we were meant to expand on, but it didn’t feel like there were many potential points of interaction where other systems could meaningfully attach to that core w/o either having v little effect or pulling the core gameplay away from what it had been set out to be (see, the more elaborate market system proposal that was rejected for drawing too much focus away from the core mechanics)

if i’d had more time to explore the status quo of the dynasty i mightve gotten bored w/ it and decided to propose some out-there additions to see what wld stick :0

the no collaboration rule was interesting– i like chatting about the game w/ other players when im engaged, so as long as there’s public conversations about the dynasty i dont mind being restricted to those. and the round structure was quite good too, it made it easy for me to follow things despite my absences :0

Kevan: HE/HIM

09-06-2021 08:22:45 UTC

No Collaboration made a refreshing change for allowing us to focus on the gameplay without worrying about what complex plans other players might be being concocting behind the scenes, and for cutting out baroque cabal scams entirely. It did show up that the game possibly needs some of that intrigue, though, at least for me - that it gives more to think about (even if you’re jumping at shadows), and opens up the space for scams, and for basic “I’m going to propose something to inconvenience a few other players, but not you or me, back me up?” manoeuvreing.

The round structure timing seemed good: I think private orders revealed simultaneously might be the best framework we’ve got, for avoiding timing issues (although Favour purchase being a free action broke that a bit). 48 hours felt about right for having time to propose changes in between.

Although having said that, I think the whirring machinery of the Round system may also have been deterring people from poking their fingers into it: proposals to modify the basic game had to take into account that players may already have submissions queued up that either wouldn’t work or wouldn’t be the best move, were a proposal to pass, and that a proposal enacting hours before the end of a Round is unfair to anyone who doesn’t have time to use its actions.

Josh: RICHARDO VON NESTOR HE/HIM

09-06-2021 09:49:16 UTC

I am curious about how strategic players were being.

My gut feel is that Kevan and I were at an 8 or so - targeting pictures to throw each other off the scent while maximising the points available from other players, and spreading votes away from each other while evenly dispersing amongst the others so that no-one else could break from the pack. (Busting pokes down from the early-front-runner peleton felt like a tacit, unspoken act of cooperation between us.)

Was anybody else playing that way?

I’m very curious about how the tactical, victory-oriented layer of the game interacts with the more relaxed, i-just-want-to-pick-the-best-picture layer of the game. If the last year has shown that the pool of players who are willing to focus on victory is quite small then that has interesting implications for the culture of the game, and might reveal a low-key tension that could use discussion.

Kevan: HE/HIM

09-06-2021 10:05:45 UTC

Yeah, 8 sounds about right for me: I was trying to mimic and vote for players at the back as much as possible, but balancing that against making and voting for artwork that might be popular so that I’d get more Kudos and money. Which was an interesting tightrope. I was also making a fair effort to disguise my own work (I even threw in some fake EXIF data for the final round, in case it made it through the posting process and anyone was checking), but not going as full-on as I could have.

It looked like other players were slower to realise that (I think) it was always better to sell artwork early than let it appreciate, as an empty Collection meant you were much more likely to pick up new art each round. Even a $1000 artwork is as much appreciation as you’d get on four rounds of a $5000 one. I guess you’re always gambling against what future rules are going to come along, though.

pokes:

09-06-2021 11:44:15 UTC

Looking at my Clucky PMs: I gradually tactically voted more starting around round 6, fully tactically voting by round 10. I wasn’t tactically art-ing, until the last round, and definitely should have been double-submitting before then.

Re: Kevan: Yeah, I had casually assumed on a first reading pass that the tie-breaker was based on net worth and not art worth, which kept me from selling too long.

I liked the 48 hour round structure, but the specific time was a good one for me.

Jason: HE/HIM

09-06-2021 15:27:10 UTC

Re: strategy, I just voted for the pictures I liked the best, penalizing obvious metagaming, like the spider-free savannah or the picture with “First Dynasty of Raven1207” in the last round.

I liked the 48 hours rounds as well.

You must be registered and logged in to post comments.