Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RoseHeart]

Ironically, being a double poster myself, I do try to avoid it being part of a game.

[RoseHeart]

It's not a huge deal, but I think adding/changing rules mid-game can be bad form if it makes the game more confusing to follow, or changes the weight of advantage for a player in a competitive game. I think it's different if you're running an RPG or a co-op strategy etc where new developments and mechanics are expected and are an expected aspect of the game.

Outside spaces, asymetric pacing, beacons, extra turns, why don't we officially refer to this as a playtest.

Allowing everyone to spawn all unit types directly is not helping, in my opinion. I understand the reasoning, but the lack of unit variety in the second game was caused by a flaw in the level design, the rules themselves were sound. Upgrading units worked well in the first game, it provided a way to gain a long term advantage and break or prevent stalemates.

With this now being a playtest, if Quarque wants to plan another round of Forum Platoon II as a more competative/stable match, that would help the series re-examine some of those older elements.

I've already collected a lot of data from what we've done, so if after this change, or with there being two matches run simultaniously, you decide to drop out of the playtest then I thank you for your participation thus far.

There won't be any prize for winning Jungle Platoon, so it's just to volunteer to test new ideas. I still plan to make any further changes only done through unanimous vote for the duration of the experiment.

Since people are talking about the rules of the game I'd just like to say that the constant changing of the rules makes it hard to play do to some of the rules I read at the beginning no longer being valid, meaning I have to periodically reread the rules.

Everything I added was necessary to keep me invested in the series creatively. Though I hear your concerns that tweaks after the start hinder the competitive spirit, and is a lot to follow.

Paper coming into my game and speaking on behalf of my own players perhaps roused me to double-down on this approach. If I listened to everything he suggested, I'd have to make many creative and personal compromises(that would make hosting forum games about as fulfilling as eating cardboard), not least of which leave Bay 12(something I have no plan to do, temporarily, or otherwise). So the idea that that mouthpiece was representing you was not something I wanted to admit. I knew it was a lot, but you made it clear that it really is too much.

You're more important than me being right.

[King Zultan]

Outside spaces, asymetric pacing, beacons, extra turns, why don't we officially refer to this as a playtest.

Wouldn't that make every version of this game a play test since it has been different each time its run?

[RoseHeart]

Outside spaces, asymetric pacing, beacons, extra turns, why don't we officially refer to this as a playtest.

Wouldn't that make every version of this game a play test since it has been different each time its run?

Volume and post release tweaks, but yeah.

Infact I think that you understand that (even when I don't announce it) is the reason you usually put up with so many of my experimental games.

[King Zultan]

I'll play pretty much anything weather it's a test or fully realized game, as long as it sounds fun.

[RoseHeart]

I'm glad you find them fun!

[notquitethere]

It's just a bit annoying, as it takes about five or six days of concerted action to implement a plan like "take the armory" and now that plan is down the drain due to a new rule that gives opponents who did nothing for a whole day a load of extra actions such that they might now be able to intercept when previously they couldn't. I don't necessarily disagree with the new mechanics, but it's a bit like if you were playing Monopoly, and mid-way through someone declared that the goal of the game now was to lose the most money.

It's done now, and I'll play on, but this sort of thing makes people more reluctant to join future games.

[RoseHeart]

It's done now, and I'll play on, but this sort of thing makes people more reluctant to join future games.

Thank you for coming over from Q's game a trying out mine. That's not gunna change, because I wouldn't want to host those games. It's more like playing Monopoly with the developer of Monopoly while he's developing Monopoly. Change is a part of that development, and as wild as it's been, it's probably been more tame than the changes across MFPI, which picked up in speed in the middle. Going from Quarque's very stable game into this test of so many new features I get it, but every single update I made has been completely necessary, this is what you can expect. I promise.

[RoseHeart]

I'm not of a creative tempo, where I can run a game for 1 to 3 months at a time, then make one change and host another one for 1 to 3 months. I lose interest, focus, enthusiasm. My sequels are often years apart.


I cannot be convinced, bargained with, or anything like that, when it has to do with me bare-minimum wanting to run the damn game. There's no reality where I make a stagnant game and have the wear withal to host it for that period of time. It's not muscle I can train, it's not a mental discipline, I don't have it in me. If a game doesn't captivate me anymore, it's gotta change.

If that makes me a less desirable host to follow, oh well. It's the substance of who I am, and what I have to offer. I may not be your favorite host, but I will show you something you haven't seen before.

I make something I care about, if that's not shared. So be it. I won't make anything else.

[Man of Paper]

I cannot be convinced, bargained with, or anything like that

It’s good to see you admit this.

I’ll just point out here that you tried to use me as an excuse for you doubling down but you just did the same exact thing with nqt without any input from me. This might be a pattern you’d do well to address instead of trying to blame your behavior on someone else. It’s a lot healthier to take responsibility for your own actions, and even moreso to try to change problematic ones, than to plant your feet and go “this is me, deal with it, I don’t care if it pushes people away”.

I do hope you take my advice and disconnect for a little bit, find a healthier place to vent about your traumas, and work on your issues you project around that isn’t a forum game and roleplaying subforum on the dwarf fortress forum. I seriously believe that if you can straighten out whatever is going on in there that you’ll have a much better time with, well, everything.

Oh, and a protip: when you’re making a game to run it has to appeal to yourself, sure, but you of all people should understand that you are essentially creating a product for others consumption. That means their experience is the priority that needs to be catered to. Just keep that in mind for the future.

[RoseHeart]

It's just a bit annoying, as it takes about five or six days of concerted action to implement a plan like "take the armory" and now that plan is down the drain due to a new rule that gives opponents who did nothing for a whole day a load of extra actions such that they might now be able to intercept when previously they couldn't.

That...shouldn't be the case. When the thread was first published beacons gave +1AP instead of +2AP, and Extra Actions were not possible, but shouldn't change a thing. At least not more than about a single 24 hour period, or portion of it.

You can only move a unit 2AP per turn, that's been there since publication.

Extra Turns allows you to barrow that a bit early, but again just within a day and it's eating from your regular turn by icing those units leaving the remainder of our options more predictable and limited.


I'm gunna hold off until Nov 4 before presenting any proposal for voting on, and leave the game as is.

[notquitethere]

It's still the case though that you can, in one day, surge forward with a unit with 4 actions, even if you're borrowing from the future to do it. In this particular case, I think I've mitigated against that and by the end of the week I should have my own beacons. So I'm not saying you should undo your decision or anything, it is what it is.

I don't particularly want to argue about it, I'm just letting you know, as a fellow game creator and runner myself who has grappled with exactly this, that changing a game mid-way (especially in a way that gives someone a material advantage) is bad form and players will always complain. I absolutely get the desire to experiment and iterate, I feel it too, but it can undermine a game. You can ignore that lesson if you like, that's your prerogative, but you will be bound to hear the same complaints again.

I was pulled up on this in the very first game I ran on this forum:

Just fyi, notquitethere...

You never impose new rules partway through the game UNLESS:

1) There is a significant need to impose the rule. Examples include someone trying to break the game.
2) That is part of the game.

Just, you know, don't ever do that. No one wants the rules changed on them if they were not expecting it.

And it's something that's stuck with me ever since.

If you anticipate wanting to chop and change a lot, then it's best to run much shorter games where you can iterate more quickly between games without undermining any given game being ran.

[RoseHeart]

Thank you for sharing that, and connecting it to you on a personal level with the quote/lesson.


I think it's really just an issue of presentation, would you have the same complaints if this was labeled a Playtest from the beginning?

[RoseHeart]

What ever Quarque decides to do with his games in the future, I give my blessing to use my Platoon art assets if they are of use.

[RoseHeart]

Proposal (this will only happen if all players vote "yes")

You can't spend ALL your future APs, you need to leave at least 2.

Reason: This is to limit the need for "empty" turns where you only unfreeze units.