Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play? Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue. My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.
Poll - How many Clans should players be allowed to have?
I chose 6 clans as the number to allow players to actually play. I feel that everyone should choose a primary faction that they want to play within. Then at the game start, they can create 3 clans all within their chosen faction. Then after 6 months, they can add another 3 clans. Now with these additional 3 clans, the player can choose any faction that they might want to play within, as long as it is not a faction that is an enemy of their chosen primary clan. So they could eventually have and run 6 clans total. Now they could also eventually become a city leader of the number of cities equal to the number of clans. So that means 6 clans, could also run 6 cities. Also, EF's are based on 1 EF per clan.
(6) clans, the first 3 in your primary declared faction, then the next 3 can be in whatever you want as long as not in an enemy clan.
I would declare Seeker as my Primary faction, with (3) Seekers, (2) Cymru, and (1) Gift
I like (6) clans as the number of allowed played clans.
I like 9 clans and 9 cities. But I'm okay with 6 clans and 6 cities.
[quote='TheDarkSide' pid='137686' dateline='1581643765']
Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play? Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue. My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.
[/quote]
During the beta test I expect people to start up, let's call it "numerous" clans. Let's not go crazy with it but I'd like to test the code in as many ways as possible. That may mean dropping some of the clans when we go live, but I expect you'll have ideas about how to do that by then.
I'm trying to get rid of the "deep pockets" syndrome altogether by having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how many they run. I may end up needing to add extra charges for special things like combats or SAs, but we'll see how that works out.
My biggest problem with many clans is the clan-version of "deep pockets", such as how many cooperating clans can you bring to bear on an issue (either reasonably or "unfairly")? For instance, let's think of an overly-inflated extreme example... if you started 100 clans with 2000 retainers in each one, what could you do against the guys playing only a few clans? Would they resent that sort of heavy-handedness? Even if it were 6-to-1 (because someone only has time to play one clan), wouldn't the same concept apply? Yes, you good players wouldn't want to group all your clans together and run around causing mischief, but that doesn't mean some other player wouldn't. How much can I give away without causing headaches somewhere?
[quote='Davin' pid='137698' dateline='1581658702']
[quote='TheDarkSide' pid='137686' dateline='1581643765']
Question for the Poll: How many Clans should players be allowed to play within the game? So far it has been stated that 3 seems to be the core value of clans. It has not been made clear how many clans the GM wants each person to play during the beta-test, but the 3 clan core value has been brought up as the value at game start. Now historically the range in the number of clans has raged from 3 up to 9 clans, and even then I hear that some had even more than 9+. So what is a fair number of clans to allow a player to actually play? Some might argue allowing someone to play 9+ clan might allow someone to unfairly balance matters within the game. Those with deep pockets could certainly run a lot of clans and that could unfairly unbalance gameplay. The real question is what do each of you feel about this issue. My advice is for each to take the poll and add a comment on what you think and why. I will start and do this myself after I set up this poll.
[/quote]
During the beta test I expect people to start up, let's call it "numerous" clans. Let's not go crazy with it but I'd like to test the code in as many ways as possible. That may mean dropping some of the clans when we go live, but I expect you'll have ideas about how to do that by then.
I'm trying to get rid of the "deep pockets" syndrome altogether by having everyone pay the same amount regardless of how many they run. I may end up needing to add extra charges for special things like combats or SAs, but we'll see how that works out.
My biggest problem with many clans is the clan-version of "deep pockets", such as how many cooperating clans can you bring to bear on an issue (either reasonably or "unfairly")? For instance, let's think of an overly-inflated extreme example... if you started 100 clans with 2000 retainers in each one, what could you do against the guys playing only a few clans? Would they resent that sort of heavy-handedness? Even if it were 6-to-1 (because someone only has time to play one clan), wouldn't the same concept apply? Yes, you good players wouldn't want to group all your clans together and run around causing mischief, but that doesn't mean some other player wouldn't. How much can I give away without causing headaches somewhere?
[/quote]
I have no idea what "deep pockets" is... in my world a clan is $5 with three special actions and a city is $5 with three special actions. I'm used to most of the GM comments on special actions being "Noted and done," and I'm okay with that if I'm doing something like training or another action that doesn't require much of a response. Paying $5 to input a build order and recruit command with three special actions sounds reasonable -- that is what my usual turns consisted of (building along with special actions). I was paying close to $100 a month on Midgard. I may not do that now, but if I have to donate plasma again I would consider it -- if the game was fun and like it was.
A simple disclaimer would seem sufficient -- new clan location is not guaranteed. A player can request a clan in a specific area but due to game balance and other playability factors, a specific location is not a guarantee. The seasoned players will understand and anyone trying to drop 100 clans in a location is likely a seasoned player or a friend of one. Again, I think you are over thinking this. Pick 3, 6, or 9 and be done with it.
Oliver
I agree with Oliver, you need to choose how many clans we players can have.
So you're saying that the physical separation of clans on the continent would keep them from working together? I suppose that would help.
Before setting limits like that I was trying to look at extreme examples to see if I could pull apart loopholes that aren't immediately obvious. For instance, what if I were to make no limits at all on the number of clans? What would that do to game play and game balance? If I could provide some sort of controls for such a situation then it wouldn't really matter how many I allowed.
FWIW, I'm currently thinking about at least 6 clans, but I may not let players start all of them at one time (after the beta test, that is). Perhaps you'd have to play no more than 3 clans for a few months before you could sign up for more, for instance, or have some other limiting factor enforced (like how much you actually do with them, or somesuch). I'd like players to actually have time and interest to keep up with whatever number of clans they play, so if someone signs up 3 clans (for instance) and then they sit there and don't do anything with them, I wouldn't prefer to be giving them even more to let sit idle. Or if someone had 6 clans and were at their limit of playtime available, signing up for another 3 would mean that some would just have to sit around and I wouldn't want them to be able to get any more until they could make use of what they had.
FYI - I can make decisions on the number of clans allowed now, but that can be changed right up until game start (or even after) because the programming wouldn't care how many I end up with. Would it make you happy (or unhappy) if I said 6 now and then changed my mind later?
[quote='Davin' pid='137750' dateline='1581875541']
FYI - I can make decisions on the number of clans allowed now, but that can be changed right up until game start (or even after) because the programming wouldn't care how many I end up with. Would it make you happy (or unhappy) if I said 6 now and then changed my mind later?
[/quote]
I think it is reasonable to say 6 for now. This gives the would-be beta testers an idea of how they want to start their initial game play.
[quote='FutureSojourner' pid='137704' dateline='1581677311']
I have no idea what "deep pockets" is... in my world a clan is $5 with three special actions and a city is $5 with three special actions. I'm used to most of the GM comments on special actions being "Noted and done," and I'm okay with that if I'm doing something like training or another action that doesn't require much of a response. Paying $5 to input a build order and recruit command with three special actions sounds reasonable -- that is what my usual turns consisted of (building along with special actions). I was paying close to $100 a month on Midgard. I may not do that now, but if I have to donate plasma again I would consider it -- if the game was fun and like it was.
[/quote]
Oliver, "deep pockets" has to do with as you pay more hard currency for a game, you get more game benefits which makes you more powerful. Those with lots of money in their pockets, then, can "buy" major game advantages creating an unfair situation for players that are just trying to struggle along.
I plan to have the costs structured entirely differently these days. As noted on my web site front page, what I'd like to do is allow people to play all the positions in all the games that they would like, all for a single $5/month fee. This means you'd only be paying $5 instead of $100 for all the fun you can have - not exactly a financial boon for me but I hope to make it up by gaining many players. I feel like everyone should be able to have as much fun as anyone else.
However, that assumes that I can automate most processing and reduce GMing time to a very low level. My major concern right now is the GM time needs for special actions. But I'm hoping to automate most of the easy stuff that used to require special actions, such as construction projects, "contracting" for tasks to be performed for payment, clan-to-clan heliographing, coordinating cooperative clan movement and actions, picking up simple rumors in the local taverns, and hopefully even training for skills. The more I can automate, the less GM labor I'll be required to do and the lower I can keep my costs. But if I can't cut out enough, I may have to add extra turn costs for special actions beyond the automate-able stuff.
[quote="Davin" pid='137752' dateline='1581877173']
Oliver, "deep pockets" has to do with as you pay more hard currency for a game, you get more game benefits which makes you more powerful. Those with lots of money in their pockets, then, can "buy" major game advantages creating an unfair situation for players that are just trying to struggle along.
I plan to have the costs structured entirely differently these days. As noted on my web site front page, what I'd like to do is allow people to play all the positions in all the games that they would like, all for a single $5/month fee. This means you'd only be paying $5 instead of $100 for all the fun you can have - not exactly a financial boon for me but I hope to make it up by gaining many players. I feel like everyone should be able to have as much fun as anyone else.
However, that assumes that I can automate most processing and reduce GMing time to a very low level. My major concern right now is the GM time needs for special actions. But I'm hoping to automate most of the easy stuff that used to require special actions, such as construction projects, "contracting" for tasks to be performed for payment, clan-to-clan heliographing, coordinating cooperative clan movement and actions, picking up simple rumors in the local taverns, and hopefully even training for skills. The more I can automate, the less GM labor I'll be required to do and the lower I can keep my costs. But if I can't cut out enough, I may have to add extra turn costs for special actions beyond the automate-able stuff.
[/quote]
Gotcha. I like special actions and I trust that Penn and several others do too. It is what helps with the role-playing aspects of the game and always made Midgard stand out. I think playing a 190 retainer clan is boring. But if there was a flat fee of $5 I could play a few boring clans to do boring things with no special actions. Construction was always my thing, so larger clans made that more fun and I did build up some of my clans. I got to experience a lot of the game during Zan's tenure because I would pick up clans that other players dropped and let go. I would pick them up and run with them and that was fun to experience the game through several different lenses.
You could have a set fee of $5 or $10 a month and then make $5 per special action. Some clans would just do construction, patrol, etc... but the main clans would do special actions.
Hey Davin is it $5.00 per position a month? Or is it $5.00 a month to play regardless how many positions you play?
It's $5/month, flat rate. For that you can play any (allowed) number of positions in Midgard, Galac-Tac, and any other games we get on-line, all for the one fee.
I will be the first to state you should make it $5.00 per position (Clan or City with 3 Special Actions).
Edited Feb 17, 2020 05:03 UTC
Financially that sounds good (and you're far from the first person to say it), but when I started the on-line version of Talisman Games I picked a fixed-cost pricing model. I'm not fond of going back on that now.
But as I said, I'm not opposed to charging extra for special actions and the like, and we may well end up with that.