Suggested fixes Fall 2022

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

He's going much faster now.

For a couple of days, yes!  I haven’t heard anything to suggest or confirm he’s been maintaining that pace since then.  Last I heard, he didn't understand ideology enthusiasm and kind of stalled out there.

Edited April 11, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[pman]

4 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

If we stopped making changes months ago (as was initially suggested months ago) we’d have lost out on a lot of good feedback/changes and we would be zero days closer to having a finished game because these changes don’t actually delay things, as long as we don’t touch what Anthony has already programmed (which to my knowledge is just 2.1)

Good points.  I do think getting the amendment process done is super important for the game's realism. I am definitely not a programmer but I do think a more realistic amendment process would be a very cool feature if it's doable programing wise. 

[OrangeP47]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

For a couple of days, yes!  I haven’t heard anything to suggest or confirm he’s been maintaining that pace since then.

I mean, I know there's the historical trend, but I don't need an update every hour on what he's doing.

[Willthescout7]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

If we stopped making changes months ago (as was initially suggested months ago) we’d have lost out on a lot of good feedback/changes and we would be zero days closer to having a finished game because these changes don’t actually delay things, as long as we don’t touch what Anthony has already programmed (which to my knowledge is just 2.1)

That doesn't change what I said. We literally closed changes last week until early release, and we're right back at it. What's the point of giving ourselves deadlines if we're going to just GRRM them? 

The only changes that should be happening right now are 1. Legi proofreading and 2. Impeachment. The rest of the game systems are fine. What's happening now is we're nitpicking perfectly fine and functional game systems because we're bored, or because we're losing in our playtest. 

I'm not saying don't fix broken shit, but nothings broken. So let's stop, let Antjony do his thing, and reconvene after early release. Like we all said we were going to do last week. 

 

Sorry to be the bad buy, but someone has to do it.

[Willthescout7]

1 minute ago, pman said:

Good points.  I do think getting the amendment process done is super important for the game's realism. I am definitely not a programmer but I do think a more realistic amendment process would be a very cool feature if it's doable programing wise. 

Let's just change the entire game to be more realistic. 

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, I know there's the historical trend, but I don't need an update every hour on what he's doing.

Fair, but from my perspective, the historical trend is a trend.  The couple days of impressive process is an anomaly, until of course I'm proven wrong.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

That doesn't change what I said. We literally closed changes last week until early release, and we're right back at it. What's the point of giving ourselves deadlines if we're going to just GRRM them? 

The only changes that should be happening right now are 1. Legi proofreading and 2. Impeachment. The rest of the game systems are fine. What's happening now is we're nitpicking perfectly fine and functional game systems because we're bored, or because we're losing in our playtest. 

I'm not saying don't fix broken shit, but nothings broken. So let's stop, let Antjony do his thing, and reconvene after early release. Like we all said we were going to do last week. 

 

Sorry to be the bad buy, but someone has to do it.

I think there's value to be had in the conversation, regardless of whether we implement changes in the rules right now (before Anthony gets to them), wait until there's an alpha (when it will be harder to change them), or don't implement them at all.

[Willthescout7]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

I think there's value to be had in the conversation, regardless of whether we implement changes in the rules right now (before Anthony gets to them), wait until there's an alpha (when it will be harder to change them), or don't implement them at all.

I'm not saying not to have the conversation. I'm pumping the brakes on jumping to change things after we said we were done. 

[OrangeP47]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Fair, but from my perspective, the historical trend is a trend.  The couple days of impressive process is an anomaly, until of course I'm proven wrong.

The last update was he was having trouble understanding the rules, and tbh I see that as a direct result of what's going on here, too many changes.  Every time there's a change the rule document suffers from a lack of quality control, gets more byzantine, and generally suffers from poor spelling and formatting.  This is exactly what I said would happen, it would slow Anthony down, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Willthescout7]

Look, this while thing is frustrating so I'm stepping away from the night before I insult someone accidently or say something inappropriate. 

Bottom line up front: no more changes at this time, I don't think the system is broken or needs fixing, having a little bit of inaccuracy to serve game systems is fine. Conversation is fine as long as nothing gets changed until early release so we can have a multitude of tests with the actual system.

[pman]

5 minutes ago, Willthescout7 said:

Let's just change the entire game to be more realistic. 

I know you're being sarcastic but I think the game is pretty realistic- the amendment process isn't. But I have a ton less invested in this than everyone else and I can tell people have pretty strong emotions about everything at this point. I am just trying to help- I have no idea the inner workings of programing/ game development stage, etc.

[pman]

1 minute ago, Willthescout7 said:

Look, this while thing is frustrating so I'm stepping away from the night before I insult someone accidently or say something inappropriate. 

Bottom line up front: no more changes at this time, I don't think the system is broken or needs fixing, having a little bit of inaccuracy to serve game systems is fine. Conversation is fine as long as nothing gets changed until early release so we can have a multitude of tests with the actual system.

I understand where you're coming from- I wasn't trying to cause anyone stress.

[MrPotatoTed]

19 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

The last update was he was having trouble understanding the rules, and tbh I see that as a direct result of what's going on here, too many changes.  Every time there's a change the rule document suffers from a lack of quality control, gets more byzantine, and generally suffers from poor spelling and formatting.  This is exactly what I said would happen, it would slow Anthony down, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

The last update was he was having trouble understand ideology enthusiasm, which we haven't touched since it was created years ago.  If we had touched it, we might have improved it and he'd be understanding and moving right along now.  ;c)

In all seriousness, if you saw the original rule set, you wouldn't be complaining that the current iteration was byzantine.  ;c)  Thankfully, our playtests have helped us get 90% of it under control.  Thank you, fellow playtesters!

In Anthony's defense (a rare phrase from my keyboard), ideology enthusiasm is indeed confusing -- so confusing that I don't even remember how I implemented it from playthrough to playthrough that I've run.  Each time, I think I might implement it in a new way accidentally.

I asked V how he intended it to be implemented once and he texted me the answer, but it was so long ago that I'm sure neither of us remember the answer.  It might as well be:

Haha.

Edited April 11, 2023 by MrPotatoTed

[OrangeP47]

Just now, MrPotatoTed said:

The last update was he was having trouble understand ideology enthusiasm, which we haven't touched since it was created years ago.  If we had touched it, we might have improved it and he'd be understanding and moving right along now.  ;c)

In Anthony's defense (a rare phrase from my keyboard), ideology enthusiasm is indeed confusing -- so confusing that I don't even remember how I implemented it from playthrough to playthrough that I've run.  Each time, I think I might implement it in a new way accidentally.

I asked V how he intended it to be implemented once and he texted me the answer, but it was so long ago that I'm sure neither of us remember the answer.  It might as well be:

Haha.

I mean, I'd argue the fact that we're inconsistent with it as "touching it" though technically that's less the actual document and more whatever advice he's getting probably, so it is indeed semantically unclear, but it is emblematic of the issue.  While I'm not volunteering to help him, I think my explanation of enthusiasm is the best from a conceptual (as opposed to mechanical) standpoint, with the ideos being party alignment and the party pref being ideo-independent partisanship.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, I'd argue the fact that we're inconsistent with it as "touching it" though technically that's less the actual document and more whatever advice he's getting probably, so it is indeed semantically unclear, but it is emblematic of the issue.  While I'm not volunteering to help him, I think my explanation of enthusiasm is the best from a conceptual (as opposed to mechanical) standpoint, with the ideos being party alignment and the party pref being ideo-independent partisanship.

It's the mechanics (of ideology enthusiasm) that he struggles with.  V sent him like four emails explaining it.  I asked V to send me the emails too since I'm not 100% on my own interpretation -- and frankly, the emails didn't bring me any closer to being confident on it.

Anyway, my final point is simply that anything we can clean up before Anthony gets to it is time gained and progress made.  It may or may not be too late to clean up ideology, but it's definitely not too late to clean up anything in 2.2 or after.

[OrangeP47]

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

It's the mechanics (of ideology enthusiasm) that he struggles with.  V sent him like four emails explaining it.  I asked V to send me the emails too since I'm not 100% on my own interpretation -- and frankly, the emails didn't bring me any closer to being confident on it.

Anyway, my final point is simply that anything we can clean up before Anthony gets to it is time gained and progress made.  It may or may not be too late to clean up ideology, but it's definitely not too late to clean up anything in 2.2 or after.

Honestly, I just really think it is, once he gets unstuck, he's going to do the actual action bits and that'll block pretty much anything of this nature super quickly.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

Honestly, I just really think it is, once he gets unstuck, he's going to do the actual action bits and that'll block pretty much anything of this nature super quickly.

I would love for him to be moving so quickly that we can't keep ahead of him anymore.  That would be a great problem to have!

That said, he appears to be moving in order through the rules.  He's currently stuck at ideology shifts, it seems, which is about halfway into 2.1.  We have weeks at least -- more likely months -- before he's in the governor phase.  My personal opinion, of course.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

Unrelated to any previous discussion, but I think I am in favor of frail politicians being rolled first for death. At least in the 1840 playtest they're living waaaaay to long for my taste.

One example is James Polk who was 79 when he died in our game, 26 years past his true death.

[MrPotatoTed]

2 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Unrelated to any previous discussion, but I think I am in favor of frail politicians being rolled first for death. At least in the 1840 playtest they're living waaaaay to long for my taste.

One example is James Polk who was 79 when he died in our game, 26 years past his true death.

That’s how it used to be (can’t remember if you’ve been around for that long).  @vcczar changed it to the current system a while back, but I don’t remember why.

[ebrk85]

That doesn't bother me to much. But I haven't seen full data to truly judge. In the playtests I've done we've lost plenty of people prematurely as well so offset that. So ahistorical outcomes on both ends. But I will concede none of the tests I've been involved in have gone as long as yours has so could be more egregious then I've seen.  

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

5 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

That’s how it used to be (can’t remember if you’ve been around for that long).  @vcczar changed it to the current system a while back, but I don’t remember why.

Yep, I was reading along when the rule got changed. At the time, I agreed with the change but now I'm seeing a lot of frail guys hanging around.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

3 minutes ago, ebrk85 said:

That doesn't bother me to much. But I haven't seen full data to truly judge. In the playtests I've done we've lost plenty of people prematurely as well so offset that. So ahistorical outcomes on both ends. But I will concede none of the tests I've been involved in have gone as long as yours has so could be more egregious then I've seen.  

That's fair. I try not to make a hasty suggestion (hence why I'm usually silent on a lot of debates) and prefer to have some sort of data or evidence.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Ich_bin_Tyler

[ebrk85]

Just now, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

That's fair. I try not to make a hasty suggestion (hence why I'm usually silent on a lot of debates) and prefer to have some sort of data or anecdotal evidence.

Yea I know you don't jump to conclusions. So I trust what you are seeing.

I think it also comes down to some to personal preference for each of us and how much are we looking for them to die close to their historical date.

[ebrk85]

Off topic (sorry) but since I have @MrPotatoTed attention can you check you messages. I have a quick question while I'm setting up my playtest.

[Ich_bin_Tyler]

1 minute ago, ebrk85 said:

Yea I know you don't jump to conclusions. So I trust what you are seeing.

I think it also comes down to some to personal preference for each of us and how much are we looking for them to die close to their historical date.

Do I sense a togglable option for how deaths are rolled? haha