Sodder (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sodder) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
soddersays2018-11-01 01:22 pm
sodder) wrote in soddersays2018-11-01 01:22 pm
Entry tags:
Mod Announcement + Feedback!
In Regards to the AC
Hello everyone! We are here to discuss the what we all know has become a bit of a burden on some of you: the AC.
First and foremost, we would like to apologize for not making an official post about this at the time of its announcement. There was an error in communication on our end, and we genuinely do apologize for not providing a more appropriate platform for discussion.
Our adjustments to the AC were abrupt and sudden, and we realize that we gave very little notice for this change. Again, we apologize for that. Due to that poor timing, we are allowing all players to either choose to use the newly formatted AC we have available, or rely on the old AC for this AC round. We plan to officially enact the new AC next AC round that will be posted in December. This will be the AC post for November's AC. Granted, this is assuming we collectively come to an agreement on the new AC. If bigger adjustments are made, we will give appropriate notice for that as well. You do not need to worry about another sprung-upon announcement.
We are fully aware that various players from our game have provided helpful criticism on Plurk. As always, we are more than open to feedback and have provided this post so that there can be a player base discussion on what people might be confused about, what other people might think could help, or if people who understand the new AC being able to provide help to those that don't.
AC is never an easy thing for anyone, mod or player base alike, and we apologize as we stumble towards trying to find the best AC possible for our community that suits as many players as it can possibly suit. Unfortunately it will be impossible to work well with everyone's schedule, but we are completely open to trying to accommodate everyone as much as we can within reason.
We are open to advice, recommendations, and constructive criticism as it will help our game grow to be a better game.
Again, we apologize for how this was originally handled. We always try to attempt to ensure that all players can access new information, and will make sure another lapse like this does not happen again in the future.
Thank you to everyone who has brought this to our attention on our Plurk about this, as well as the few players who have made sure to directly speak to us! We are glad it was brought to our attention in a respectful way so that we could respond appropriately.
We hope to hear from all of you soon! As in our past mod feedback posts, we will not respond to the feedback here, but will read everyone's statements very carefully and eventually make a follow-up response to everyone's concerns.
Thank you!
In Regards to Changes
To better discuss the reason behind some of our changes, we'll explain the core parts we find important:
➟ We have been spoken to by numerous players at various times that felt like log points should generally be worth more than network points. While it's a generalization to say that most logs are usually longer than most network posts, we also know that it's very difficult to properly measure quality against quantity, so we unfortunately have to rely on generalizations. We know some network posts can be just as thoughtful as log posts, and some log posts can be as short and sweet as network posts, but we have collectively figured that the opposite is usually more accurate.
If someone has a better idea for measuring out the value between posts, feel free to make mention of it below!
➟ As this is a story driven game, we do have a certain pacing we want to keep in mind for our plots. This is the reason behind capping off backtags to three months. We felt this provided ample time for players to wrap up old threads while getting involved in new threads. You are more than welcome to backtag to your heart's desire, but we will only reward tags as old as three months in order to encourage players to stay up to speed on the game's story in general.
➟ Our three tag minimum is purely to ensure that threads do not get abandoned.
➟ We felt like top levels, open posts on the network, or open posts on the log community are usually very thoughtful and require a level of committed work which is why we decided to allow that be half your base AC. This was seen as particularly useful seeing as most people do one of the three in a month anyway.
Those are the changes we felt were the most important to our update, and the changes we would most like to keep relevant in our changes.
We do plan on streamlining our information. One of our players did inform us that the page felt overwhelming due to its length, only to realize most of it was FAQ or examples. We understand and agree with this criticism, so we plan to streamline all of that information onto a separate page that can be used as a helpful resource to players who might need it for AC.
We also, in general, hope to clarify things more smoothly in general. If we come to realize other important changes need to be made, we will make sure to do so!
We look forward to hearing from everyone!
Questions
no subject
October was a super busy month events-wise and I didn't necessarily get to do everything I was planning to do before October ended. So if I started a thread today, in November, that's backdated to October, will it qualify for November's base AC?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Regarding the AC page itself, it's nice to know that info's being streamlined, but one problem I have is that another page will add... a lot of info needing to be read in general, if that makes sense? Deerington has a lot of information pages already, so it might be better to try and shorten/summarise some points that have been made on the AC page rather than add the chunks of info in an entirely new page? Of course, I'm not sure how that'd be done/written out, but it'd be better if possible to limit it to one page. Maybe you can ask players which parts of the AC info are most confusing to them also, so you can figure out which things to rewrite/cut out/add, etc.
In general I think I have some understanding about how AC works (albeit after rereading it a ton)-- a toplevel is 10 points, subsequent replies to the toplevel are 1 or 3 points depending on whether it's a network or a log, and you get +2 additional points for crosscanon interaction, so long as you haven't counted +2 in any previous threads with them before. I don't really get the base activity, though. With the way spillover points were described, is base activity based on how many comments you've posted, or how many points those comments are worth? Is the AC system a points-based system or a comment-based system? It might also be good not to describe toplevels as "half of base AC" if it's points-based, too, since it's easier to understand that a toplevel is worth 10 points and AC is 20 points in total rather than thinking it's worth half of AC "just because it's a toplevel". I also remember base AC isn't supposed to count for bonus points, so why is there spillover in the first place?
Out of curiosity, what do "backtags" mean in this scenario? For example, for October AC, what if the thread started in April, but we've been tagging it over the months and 3 new comments have been added to the thread this October? Would these tags count for AC because they were written in October, or do they fall under the "backtag" clause?
And with threads having to be 3 comments or more, just for clarification, what if it started in October and had 2 comments in it (thus making it null in counting) when October ended, but by November it had 10 comments in total? Do we count the comments made in October towards November AC?
It might also be nice to have proper definition for the threads that count under Horror Points, or maybe put up on mod logs that "playing under this prompt will qualify for HP threads". I'm not sure, though. I like that there's flexibility for it since horror can mean any number of things, but sometimes the flexibility leaves you wondering if it's right or not...
These are all the questions I've had that I can think of so far and I might be coming back to add more whether through edits to this comment or replies. x: This is my first game where I've had to do AC for two months (!!!) so I'm honestly super new to it, so any clarification would be fantastic!
And also, for the record, I prefer the 1 comment = 1 point system, and not allowing inbox threads to count towards base AC is kind of crummy for some. Maybe it can be more like not all base AC should come from inbox threads? At least 1 thread from the main comm? Rather than nixing inbox stuff altogether.
no subject
no subject
+1 on not adding additional info to an already dense database of information — it shouldn't be more complicated than can be easily summarized
+1 on having a base definition on what constitutes as horror points — A direct quote from Discord: "Anything that involves talking or facing trama also counts as horror (like patching people up)". That seems to sum it up pretty succinctly and follows the theme of flexibility offered in the game in other aspects. (I can also speak from personal experience that threading my character dealing with another character's PTSD is horrific and I think it should count, so I'm glad that's considered.)
no subject
However, there is one small thing I wanted to suggest. The option, on the form, to "skip" collecting bonus points for the month. I know that there are some players in the game that don't like counting or totaling things, or may be stressed for time but have base AC easily, but for whatever reason they feel like they are obligated because there isn't a skip option on the form.
Other players just aren't interested in regaining things or unlocking things, and I think it'd be nice to have the option coded into the form to take away some of that feeling of obligation if the player doesn't want to total beyond base. It's a minor thing, but I feel like it'd make it easier on those players.
no subject
no subject
However. I'm reading all of this, and while I can understand why people would want to place value on certain logs or networks...or any thread to get more points, the only thing I'm noticing is the trend on making counting the numbers more and more complicated.
And, too, it makes me feel as if no matter how I try to follow how AC is done, that I'm always going to do it wrong, one way or another. Which is frustrating and upsetting, foolish as it sounds.
I tried understanding the newest system that was put into place, and I just saw a reason for frustration, and moreover, a reason that possible players may not want to join us.
While the bonuses are nice and great, I'd rather just stick with a simple system. It feels as if we're getting punished for trying to follow the rules, or for trying to be backtag friendly, or any of it.
One tag, one point, that would be a system that's easy to follow and would be far less complicated to do. I know that others have made excel formulas, and it's great but...I don't understand why we should need it in the first place.
Since bonus ac is for fun, and a reward, not a job, it should be something that can be quickly compiled and finished so we can get back to what we want to do-tagging.
no subject
no subject
I want to add that it particularly resonates with me that it's a frustrating process and it's upset me for every AC period to have been consistently incorrect despite working with very similar calculation concepts in my every day job. I admit that I'm a prideful person and I shouldn't be bothered that it's so difficult for me, but having to further remind myself it's a hobby leaves me thinking it's probably okay to at least acknowledge as a gripe.
I will say, in my experience, that the mods have always been gracious and helpful about AC when asked. But I think, overall, the answer should be to make AC as easy and obvious as possible so that people can mostly serve themselves.
no subject
I get that logs should be worth more than network threads, and I appreciate that you guys want to reward us for our hard work and writing a lot of action and/or prose! But I keep noticing that things get added on rather than actually changed, making both the info post and the ac form longer and longer every time something new happens to ac. Honestly it took me way too long to understand that you have to multiply your log thread comment count by 3 to get your bonus points from that one thread. I confess I have a mental disorder that severely impairs my ability to work with numbers and do math, so "3 points/comment" made absolutely no sense until I realized "/" meant "per". But even that doesn't make much sense in the way that portion of the post was worded, because at first glance it seemed like you meant each comment in a log thread was worth 3 points. It's just one of the many things that is super confusing with the post.
Many things in that page could be clarified (such as an open toplevel being 10 points, and that the threads coming from it will be weighed separately), or simply made concise. Others could be done away with or changed up to be simplified, such as the process of extracting bonus points from base AC if the comment count is over 20. There's already so much mathing in the bonuses, especially for those with a bajillion threads to offer up, and it's gotten rather tedious, even with a calculator on hand. But to be honest I'm not even sure where to start with suggestions to help out with that because like. I'm still having trouble understanding every little thing, unfortunately.
no subject
no subject
no subject
To add a little about the reward system: I appreciate the rewards for characters, but I want to suggest that game-related rewards (i.e. unlocking locations) maybe be tied to bonus point USE versus having a character spend their points toward unlocking that item/location/plot/whatever. I think that would be a fun way to drive the use of bonus points while not putting it on one person to sacrifice their points for the overall benefit of the game. But that would mean they'd need to be tracked for that purpose by the mods (if they aren't already).
Also, it's a... weirdly valued market, but I won't pick too many bones about that. Since a vehicle can be purchased with 100 points the last time I checked, that's easily accessible for a person in 1-2 AC periods, especially if log-heavy. Does that seem to make sense? It's 10 points for clothing, so a shirt is worth 1/10 of a motorcycle? I'm not sure who's even tracking money in vs. money out or if it's even meant to be thought of in that way.
Honestly, I don't even balance my own checkbook, so tracking and calculating AC is just D:
no subject
I would say that I think it's very important to recognize that math isn't everyone's strong suit. I messed up on my AC the first time it switched and I got confused and I think I didn't quite count my points right with a ten point discrepancy against my favor. And I got a response saying I hadn't done AC right and I needed to recount. That made a lot of work for me over a few points. I think that it might be important to acknowledge that players might not count right and that if they don't it's not the end of the world to just let it go. Unless there is some major discrepancy, a few points doesn't make or break you and I don't think anyone wants to do a recount once they have submitted AC.
I also want to say that I think maybe a good way to compromise would be to allow players to use their inbox tags as AC. When a player joins a game it's not great when all they want to do is stay in their own inbox and not branch out and I do understand wanting to distract from that. But ultimately players who join the game should have a right to play where they want/feel comfortable with. It doesn't seem that bad to just let people have their inboxes as more than just bonuses. If people want to play only in their own corner, that's sort of their prerogative and it doesn't really negatively impact the rest of the players.
However, I do also appreciate having a base requirement for activity counting. In my own experience I had several things that I had listed for activity/bonus points, but ultimately they won't count because I was tagged once and only once. I want something that encourages players to be more interactive and not just drop tags after a single response.
Another suggestion that I had was to scratch the horror points and just make it all bonus points. That would allow people one less thing to differentiate between. Maybe any of the points could buy any of the things.
No matter what, change is never an easy thing whether people like it or don't like it. I also know you guys are working hard to balance all the comments you get about AC. I know this is a new game and you all are trying to figure out what works best as it grows. Thank you for listening and good luck with ironing out the rest of the details.
+1
/2c
The crosscanon bonus is definitely a concept I like a lot (thank you for not having it be a multiplier). I'm very much someone in favor of log threads counting as more than network comments, and I think getting a reward for writing top levels are both Good Things.
I'm sort of ambivalent about whether or not inboxes can be used for AC. They do tend to be both low effort and insular, so I can see why they'd fall more toward bonus points than general AC. The comment minimum for bonus points here is actually lower than my other game, which is nice.
Really, my general feelings with bonus AC go something like this: it should be an easy to manage formula that is (tag type value) x (number of comments). Any additions should be things that are single values easily added at the end.
The only mechanic I really find obnoxious for bonus AC are when there are weird things that change the base multiplier for certain threads / tags, or calculations that only apply if you hit X number of tags of a specific type of content; these get very subjective and are difficult to run through excel.
Which is the sane way to do bonus AC. :P
no subject
someone upthread a bit said that it sounded more like "y'all can talk about it if you want but these changes are still happening," and honestly I kind of agree? I definitely understand that you can't poll the whole playerbase on every single change that's made, but activity check certainly seems like something that is important enough that there should be some opportunity for suggestion and discussion before the changes are announced or implemented.
I've been around for only four months, and I don't even think I was here for the old AC system, but it's still taken me 4 months to understand the old AC system... and now it's like "bigger better and 300x more complicated!" and I'm admittedly a little @___@ about it. this is definitely a personal problem but it makes me feel dumb that I can't figure it out and that's a little discouraging tbh :(
I think there's also a lot about the current AC post that makes things confusing. I'm just going to type it out and if anybody wants to confirm or correct me please feel free
assuming this is more or less the gist of it, then I guess I just have a whole ass ton of questions lmao
1. the way the post is currently laid out makes it look like comments counted for base AC are 1 comment = 1 point regardless of whether they're network or log comments. in the Jim example given, it first says "Total: 34 w/2 characters = AC MADE! :D" which, at least to me, implies that those 34 comments are worth 34 points. but later is written "34 total log comments x 3 for each comment = 102 total - 20 required = 82 bonus points."
Q: if log comments are 3 points each when counted for either base AC or bonus AC, shouldn't the first example reflect that, like "4 log comments (12 points) / 30 log comments (90 points) / TOTAL: 34 comments (102 points) = AC MADE!"
2. what about network threads that become action threads? do they count as network comments or log comments? if they are counted as log comments, then does that mean players have to choose whether to use the network portion or the log portion for AC? another rule is that players can't provide 2 proofs with the same character, but if network-to-log threads are counted separately I think it needs to be made clear either that a) we can provide proof from the same character in that case or b) we can calculate the comments' value according to their content in the same line (e.g. "THREAD with Sean, 10 network + 5 log = 15 comments, 25 points").
3. as someone else said above, disallowing inbox threads as base AC as a way to keep players interactive and not in their own inboxes all the time makes sense from a certain point of view. however, I don't really understand what's different about an inbox thread vs. a closed log or closed top level. in both cases, characters aren't open to other interactions and are sticking with the same partner. so if inbox threads aren't allowed as part of base AC I guess I don't know why closed logs or toplevels would be allowed for base AC. this isn't a question mostly because I'm not sure I fully understand it RIP
4. are cross-canon points counted exclusively as part of bonus AC now? or maybe it has always been that way and I just never noticed because all interaction is cross-canon interaction for me lmao
anyway I know that modding is a super thankless job sometimes and I know you guys are doing your best, I just think that this move in particular is not really helping to make things more clear and I don't appear to be the only one struggling with it, so I hope that we'll be able to have some productive discussion and clear things up!
no subject
no subject
For #2 — also hoping to hear about network -> action and how it would be counted in the 1/3 point structure, as well as single vs. separate threads.
For #3 — would also like to ask why inbox threads don't count under the 1/3 point comment count rule, as I thought it was pretty accepted that people do network and log type threads (action) in inboxes, and the suggestion is about rewarding the effort between the two. Seems it should be consistent.
RE inbox vs. closed threads in the comms: I tend to use my inbox for personal/reactionary CR that doesn't necessarily add anything to what my character contributes to the game, and I appreciate that it's allowed for AC at all (as most games don't). It's useful, I think, to allow me to feel a little more free to start random threads I might not necessarily want to take the time to set up as a log (or a targeted network post). I've had as much log activity as network activity in the inboxes, and just because those log-type threads are not pasted into the log comm, it's worth less for some reason, even if I've exerted just as much effort.
I will admit that I'd started a closed post on the log comm recently to replace and/or offset this inbox activity specifically so that I could harvest the additional points that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise (when I was still thinking I might collect bonus AC). But it concerned me that I would be interpreted as insular if I had to do the same every month.
It feels unnecessary to make that distinction if the 1/3 point structure's to be maintained. Should it really make a difference in points based on where we post the tags as long as they're in a game-sanctioned location?
no subject
The first talking point I have is how complicated both the AC page and AC seems. I know someone already pointed that out, but I'm just doubling down on the page clutter. It makes it kinda hard to get to the meat and potatoes of the page. As for AC, I really love the idea of Base AC and how it's done. But it seems like there's a lot of I dunno, hoops to jump through now with how a thread is counted; my main gripe is the 3 comment minimum, which I could understand for like Base AC but it seems a little silly for Bonus? I'm a slow tagger meaning it takes a while to get threads up and going, especially since a lot of the people I tag with are also slow taggers. I understand that it's not to abandon threads, but it also is problematic to the slower taggers especially towards stuff started later on in the month. I guess what I'm saying is, would this count as backtagging in fairness? Like would I be able to claim the points next month, even if the tags happened in the previous month? (I know you were asked a similar q to this on the questions part of the ac page but I just want to be sure here.)
I think another one of my issues with the new AC is just how piled on top of everything it seems to be, but I think that'll be sorted with a streamlined AC page, as has already been discussed.
I also don't love that Inbox threads have been taken away completely from Base AC, since they're still basically game canon. I understand why it was done and might argue to allow people to use one for the AC but that might make things confusing too. So I think perhaps keeping it to Bonus AC is the right thing (even if I'm a salted peanut over it). But I do wish there was a better solution to this, since I figure it's an attempt to make people be available to other characters, however it's hardly different than doing closed logs or private messages on the network. What I mean is that if people are going to be unavailable to new cr, they're going to find other ways to do it. Inbox or not. I don't really have a solution to offer since I can understand both sides, but I think it's ultimately a losing battle against people who are going to find ways to not tag out other than to their friends.
Also I might calculate my bonus tags differently but I really don't see the need for a new way to calculate cross-canon cr. It feels like it's complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated? Just tack on the points at the thread? It just makes the point system seem even more overwhelming to me in my opinion. I really love the idea of CC points though, and love that they're implemented because it rewarding to make new CR. However, I'm of the firm belief that easy math is the right way to go, and adding an entirely new section to the math parts is a little redundant if it can be done in the other parts.
I also saw Sarah suggest nixing horror points in general, which I think could simplify things a lot. At this point, it seems like everyone's aware they're here for a horror game, and they're having fun with the horror aspects. I know it was first implemented before to make sure people weren't being too SOL-y but I think it's kinda been a good test and you can see the player-base has embraced the horror. I'm curious as to if Ami checks the horror points to see if they're horror threads, and if they are, wouldn't simply requiring a horror thread for base AC be easier to be sure people are doing horror things?
I was fine with the 1 tag, 1 point system, but I get why people would want it to be changed and I also don't mind the change. My main issue is like. What about action in network tags, does that make it a log tag? Or are log tags strictly tags that take place in the logging community? I think a more defined explanation would really benefit a lot of people. Especially with like video tags, like Wade is very ... wiggly and expressive, and I know his video tags can get pretty long winded. Is it just a matter of which network it's put in or is it a matter of how long? Or if there's action involved? I think defining that for the player base would be really helpful.
I know you guys have been working to try to fix AC and also working hard to keep people happy, which is REALLY appreciated. You guys are great mods, great people, and great writers. And even if people are critical of a system in place doesn't mean there's any judgement on you guys, and I hope you're aware of that.
I think these are all my thinky thoughts for now, if I have any more, I'll come back here.
no subject
no subject
I actually do not really like the idea of requiring horror threads as base AC. I was aware coming into the game that it was a horror game, but some characters (and by some, honestly I mean mine lmao) aren't always going to be 100% compatible with every type of horror that's presented in the events. I actually had Sean sit 99.5% of the October event out because so much of it just didn't mesh with his current character development. if a horror thread had been required I probably would have failed AC, and I wouldn't be happy about forcing Sean into a log that didn't feel organic just for the sake of passing AC, if that makes sense.
no subject
For the counterpoint, it was mentioned on Discord that the mods said "Anything that involves talking or facing trama also counts as horror (like patching people up)"
Do you still feel you would have to force Sean into a certain place to maintain that standard? I think it's open enough that even just a thread highlighting deeply complicated feelings about Deerington or events might be argued to count as horror.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I didn't have a lot to add that hasn't already been said (and agree with pretty much all of it on some level), but I will cosign that the way that AC is tracked and calculated makes the collection of bonus points (and anything beyond providing base AC) undesirable enough for me personally, that I'm unlikely to do so going forward. It's bookkeeping, and I understand that the intent is to reward effort, but it's needlessly laborious.
What was this change meant to solve? What is this system meant to maintain overall?
We call it "activity check" but the most heated debate isn't about activity, it's about bonus points and effort. Value is mentioned and I'm hoping that's meant in purely a mathematical sense (an estimate of monetary worth, i.e. points) and not in the other sense (the importance, worth, or usefulness of something).
Why do we have to consider anything more than a 1:1 ratio for points? I think the suggestion is that the game is rewarding effort (not value) but I'm concerned that the definition is based on "log vs. network."
It's difficult to tell if log = prose/action spam and network = text/audio or if it's just location, location, location. Actual definitions may exist, I don't know, but this is my current interpretation based on what I feel log and network refer to in this particular post.
If you want to encourage "effort" by defining the worth between the two based on your system here ("most logs are usually longer than most network posts"), then why not pay out points by the word? It would be more effort to calculate AC, but how much more? If people are already using spreadsheets, someone could surely write a script for that.
It begs the question: Who benefits from a more complicated system? Not the players doing the calculations, nor the mods who have to check their work.
It's important to acknowledge that no one is getting paid to mod and it can be a hugely thankless job that can needlessly puts a microscope on someone on a personal level. Those who are able and willing to volunteer that time are ultimately trying to provide something for nothing, so the changes should always be considered from that perspective (from all sides, I believe, player and mod alike) and approached with respect and a willingness for discussion. It's good to see that's happening here.
I honestly appreciate all the attention to detail afforded in this game, but I think if I can offer the suggestion, I would say the mods would be better suited by making processes easier on themselves and everyone else by removing the concept of assigning value or effort to one type of comment over another and returning to a 1:1 ratio for points.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But Bonus AC is a convoluted mess, and for someone who has an issue with math that goes beyond "just really bad with numbers", it is a giant cluster you-know-what to try and figure out. While I know bonus AC is not at all necessary, I would like to occasionally get in on some bonus rewards, but if I'm frustrated and upset after trying to figure things out for an hour straight, then I'm not going to put forth the effort in a hobby that is supposed to be fun.
To echo what someone else said, I'd just jettison horror points entirely. We're all in a horror game and should all be playing out some form of horror at some point during the month. Also, the idea that network points and log points are different amounts when totaling things up just adds more complexity to the issue for me.
no subject
So - for the most part my two cents: I think a way to go a step further would be to maybe nix the Horror points. While I get that the game itself is a horror game, I think we can agree folks are doing horror stuff anyway. The bonus points system itself is great! Rewarding players is great! I just think removing the horror points is another way to kind of streamline things. Otherwise I think everything looks great.
Once I got the hang of the point system last month everything felt easier, so I think I like that. The cross canon bonus points reward is nice and encouraging for people who want to accumulate points quickly. I think I just liked the old system in general as soon as I got the hang of it, but I think I'll get used to the changes too.
Anyway - again, thank you mods for doing all that you do to make Deerington fun. I appreciate you guys doing what you can to make things easier. I will admit when I first tried to do AC last month I was super intimidated but I think as you guys go about your thing and streamline things it will make AC straightforward for anyone who is newer and not experienced at the system yet.
no subject
But this month I decided to dabble in it a little, and I found that, since I have been in AC points system games before it wasn't too bad for me personally, but there was some excess clutter. Horror points just kind of feel unnecessary. I know there's a lot of thought in it and I appreciate you guys for it, and for rewarding people for interacting more with the horror themes, but I would hope that most people apping into a horror game are doing so with the intention of at least occasionally interacting with the horror themes so there's no need to incentivize it so much? The cross-canon points are also theoretically good, but, and especially after the points overhaul, they don't reward enough to be a major factor in whether or not people are going to tag outside their casts. I figure, if people are going to be insular, they're going to be insular, and if not, they're not, and I doubt the points are a huge factor in that, especially at only 2 points a pop.
Now, I know you guys put a lot of work into your points system, and I know you're putting a lot into it in the future, but may I suggest the simplest form of all AC rewards systems, and boiling things down instead of adding more ingredients?
Thread-based rewards.
Rather than spending however long every month tracking down your threads and counting individual comments, why not just go for a system that just rewards based on turning in... X number of threads at least X comments long? I mean, you don't have to really change your base AC from the way it is now, since it's more or less thread-based anyway given there are lower and upper limits to how many threads you turn in to hit the comment count. You can boil it down to, say, three simple rules: 1) Can't be threads used for AC, 2) Can't be threads that have been used for Rewards before, and 3) The earliest comment must not be more than three months old (to keep with your backtagging rules). Then you can put up some basic prices for things... say... having a location unlocked would "cost" you two threads of at least ten comments each. If you want to customize above and beyond that, you can say things like "Must be two threads of 20 network OR 10 log OR a combination comments each." You can reduce comment counts if they include, say, a toplevel or a network or log post as you see fit, but really, just keep it simple. You can even get really wild and say "one of these threads must be cross-canon" or "must be horror-based" for bigger, beefier rewards to ramp up the complexity a little and encourage more interaction in those veins if you think it's necessary.
I mean it seems being overly complex is part of the problem that I'm reading here and that's the simplest solution I can think of while maintaining a rewards system. It's not flawless, and there may be some adjustments to do to customize to taste, but it is easy. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.
no subject
ETA: +1 on crosscanon points being worth pretty much nothing comparatively — a figure closer to 10 points seems appropriate (however, then brings up bigger incongruities, as that's also the worth of an open post, which should probably be considered for more points than something passive, like crosscanon interaction).
Post-AC Thoughts
It left me with more questions:
Are overflow points on base AC to be segregated by point type? I had horror points in my base AC, but because of the way I interpreted overflow to work, those extra points are going into regular bonus, instead.
Should crosscanon interactions be included for base AC? I included them below. It's only 4 points, but they're my 4 points, dang it.
Despite the intense number of new points this experiment netted (I added 978 points for October on top of the 723 accumulated over 3 months), I still feel 1:1 would be much simpler than trying to assign separate values. I tend to write all my tags the same, and while I understand my text threads aren't hitting 100/300/500 words, they're still thoughtfully crafted and I don't value them any less than my other tags.
Has anyone else tried the new system and come up with additional/new thoughts about it?
idk if some of my thoughts will make no sense or are straight up controversial, but ...
taken aback by the sudden ac change being in effect for this month aside, i was just starting to get used to the previous ac system before seeing new changes being implemented with only a week's warning. i just want to reiterate my appreciation to the mods for honouring the old system during the transition period.
now for the not-so-great stuff ...
i agree that the ac page is really overly complicated and extremely long to parse through and get down to the actual necessary information required to make ac. it's also intimidating. the examples help? but i feel like even then, there might be too many variances for how these ac points work that doing the math to get the correct sum in the end is just a frustrating and really not fun experience.
i also agree with the disappointment re: taking away inbox threads as proofs of base ac. i don't really think taking them away stops people from having their own insular cr if they really want to. private logs and private network posts are just as easily done as an inbox thread, and nixing inboxes as an option from the ac proofs cuts down on a pretty valid form of game canon creation. i've seen in other comments allowing for one proof to be an inbox one while the second form of base ac must be a log/network thread, and i feel like that's actually a pretty good compromise, but also it starts to add another layer of complication that might not be as helpful in the end.
i understand the use of a points system for all the bonuses a character can get for items, plot devices, etc ... but roping the counting of base ac into the points system is where it gets a little overly complicated imo. if all we need is to prove we're active in-game, make it as dumb as something like
2 forms of proof: 5 log tags and 10 network tags (inbox or network)
(which technically equates to 20 points or whatever) and then leave the rest of the points-counting for the bonus points. its more a matter of wording than collecting points here but it works in another game i'm in and cuts down on the anxiety of having to calculate points for base ac.
and now for the bonus points portion ... there are so many separate categories for different types of bonuses, whether it's horror or not, making a post or a top-level, tagging a cross-canon character or tagging a new character, or a or b or c or z or xyz that it feels a little tedious having to go through and sort all the different shades of a thread to give it the right amount of points. i actually haven't been collecting points beyond the extra stuff i've earned from my base ac because the points system feels like a herculean task for me. i think having a bonus points system is awesome and i'm totally all for it, but it requires some clean-up. some of these items could probably be consolidated so that a group of these aspects about a tag are valued at x points, etc. some of them might not even be necessary. cross-canon threads are pretty common in a panfandom game, i almost don't feel like there's a need to reward people for it?? is it necessary to encourage people to tag outside their own canon? shouldn't that be a given, considering we're all in a panfandom horror game where cross-canon cr is a desirable reason to be here in the first place?
i think this also relates to the horror points system. we've all chosen to be in a game designated with horror elements because we like the genre and want to experiment with it. interacting with horror elements feels pretty unavoidable with all of the great and scary events occurring. do we need a separate horror points system from the base bonus points system? can they be consolidated somehow?
i agree with an above comment about the possibility of a threads-based rewards system that could be put into place. this way, say any log comment is 2 points, any network/inbox comment is 1 point, and tally them all up in the end. maybe you can throw in an open post for 2 points, and begin adding a couple of the items above such as cross-canon and horror to the points system, but essentially keep it really simple.
i hope some of this made sense.