Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
quarterly round townie deletion
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

mary glass
mary glass

Sep-16-2006 10:24

there is a great variance between the older players and agencies
and those who came along later...a gap that perhaps is too hard
to close...might i suggest quarterly rounds where the townies are
deleted for all...the older players would still have the advantage of
money, experience points, general knowledge of the game but the
quarterly deletion of townies ( all players having to reacquire the
townie favors every 90 days ) would make the game more competitive among all players and add some challenge every 90
days for the older players...

Replies

AndreaX
AndreaX
Thespian

Sep-16-2006 12:34

In that case Mary, more power to them.
As far as Sleuth goes, I will repeat: It really, really, really does not take that long to accumulated skill and experience points (I suppose the equivalent of health) and money in this game. As you can see I am aroud 100 days, which is about 4 months. In that period of time I have accumulated over 1,000,000 xp points, skills, and 8 contacts, all with a lot of help from my agency.
This game is set up that way for a reason...work hard, play hard.

Serges
Serges
Vigilante

Sep-16-2006 12:40

What if, as a compromise alternative to keeping the status quo or integrating a mechanics change with resounding repercussions, we split the middle on this one?

The solution might be to offer detectives the option to "switch" one of their contacts every x days or y amount of cases. What happens is, you do a favor for a townie, and after x cases or y days from receiving the same type of contact in that city, there's an increasing random chance that they will offer to be your contact. If you accept, you lose your former contact of the same type. If not, no change, and the opportunity will begin to accrue again.

Mary, though your argument is eloquent and appears to be for the good of the community at large, I don't see why the change you're proposing is necessary. For one, you claim there are about 60 "loyal" subscribers who are jeopardizing the game by being stagnant to any changes that would remove them from their perches. In reality, I would guess that there are several hundred, if not more, regular subscribers, as denoted by the size, age, and activity of many agencies. As far as these regulars' inability to process change, take a look through the message boards. The regulars are quite often the ones discussing, suggesting, and debating potential changes to the game. Some have made it in over the years, some have not.
You say that your proposal would inject a necessary amount of "chaos" into this game, which implies that it is lacking that "chaos". Pirates, factions, contact vs. evidence ratios, skill success, treasure hunts... all integral parts of the game that are based in whole or in part on randomness.

*cont.*

Serges
Serges
Vigilante

Sep-16-2006 12:45


You say all contacts should be lost and have to be reacquired (simultaneously I presume) every 90 days. It seems fair on its face, but consider the scope of ramification this would have. I get my PE contact on day 1, and can keep it for 90 days. Someone else has a terrible run of luck or is aiming at a specific PE contact, and gets it finally after 85 days of hard work, only to lose it in 5. I have clearly gained an advantage over this detective, and I have the potential to keep repeating that advantage 4 times a year. How is that an improvement over the "1 and done" system the game's creator (who over the years has changed a lot of things to improve the game, including contacts) envisioned from the beginning?

I always love to see new ideas on the board. I suggest a few myself from time to time. I also like to see good debate on these issues; but what we have here doesn't seem like "good" debate. It seems like detectives (no one specifically in mind with this) who do not have the desire to improve their characters clamoring to level a playing field that they have chosen not to compete on enough to be on the winning end.

In essence, this idea reeks of all the *negative* aspects of affirmative action. Great idea on paper, not too great in practice.

Serges
Serges
Vigilante

Sep-16-2006 13:01

yes, games have randomness. So does this one.

And for the record, I don't think it's fair to equate this "game" to any other game out there, classic or otherwise. There are thousands of board games, video games, card games, games of chance, etc.

But as far as I know, there isn't a game in the world like this one. Equating it to craps or Life is demeaning to the years of hard work Ben has put into it to make it a maverick.

If you want a game where everyone starts at zero at regular intervals, play Utopia. This is a role-playing game. To consistently lose something gained through experience is not an attribute of the genre.

R Anstett
R Anstett

Sep-16-2006 13:02

I think the idea of loosing a contact is a good one.

I do not think that it will do anything to affect large versus small agencies, or really change the dynamics of hunting for agencies either.

The "chaos" as Mary phrases it is not going to happen. I do not think anyone would want to have all contacts lost at once, or do anything that negates the hard work of an agency to build a good team.

I do think that the occasional loss of a contact would be good for team building however and agencies would quickly adapt to possible new stategies to accomodate those changes that happen on the fly.

Serges
Serges
Vigilante

Sep-16-2006 13:05

I don't disagree altogether with the concept of losing contacts, I just think that if it's ever implemented, it can be done in a much better way than Mary suggested. See my previous suggestion, for instance, or the suggestions of many who have thought the system needed some sort of change.

Bill Oakes
Bill Oakes

Sep-16-2006 13:08

If the townies were not lost simultaniously, but independantly after a certain period/case number, that would be better than losing all contacts every 90 days.

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]