DiceHex

Members
  • Content count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    48d 23h 37m 57s

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About DiceHex

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

ITS

  • ITS PIN J1353

Recent Profile Visitors

345 profile views
  1. What if that's what the campaign is, and that's not a bad thing, until proven otherwise? That's what I'm waiting to see. It is less a campaign, and more of a community of players doing... stuff... I think I expected governance, but without it, we're still playing, and nothing has yet imploded.
  2. If there are some "bad eggs" (perhaps with some sort of NPD as you say Section9), how bad can it possibly be without the players and staff noticing? The larger their effect, the more likely their actions will be addressed, socially and/or officially. I just don't think bad eggs are capable of ruining the whole experience, unless we assume that they are many and we are few. If we assume they are a mountain, we end up with a self reinforcing feedback loop which can create the worst case, where everyone left playing are being ****s because they think everyone else is. Report, rate, commend, and beyond that, those other people are not our problem. If they do somehow ruin the whole thing, next time, rules (or lack of) will likely change, but the conscientious players bear some responsibility as well. Is this position naive? If proven so, we have a problem and can fix it. If it is a theoretical problem which gets blown out of proportion, changes gamer behaviour and attitudes, but is not a big thing at all, that's on us for over-reacting. There seems to be an attempt here, at a self correcting community-based mechanism. If it fails, interesting. If not, also interesting.
  3. There is only player expectations, and social backlash. As a contract, well, it is up to the player base to sanction the abuse of some freedom or other. It is anarchy, except for the "report" button, and the rating system. Now social backlash for perceived misbehaviour can be an escalation unwarranted, or warranted, but it is a part of this particular campaign system. Some play to win, some play to be creative, some play simply to participate. We expect there to be rules and contracts in place but knowing there are few, places the onus of good behaviour squarely on the participants. There is a report button and a rating system, but the rest of the "in game" campaign is social in nature. The sociological element of this, is that if lots of people believe, that lots of people are playing in an unethical way, that affects their own behaviour. That's not the campaign creating some sort of competitive boundary testing, it is us. If you don't like the Stanford example, how about Lord of the Flies? With a report button and a rating system, lets hope we can avoid vilifying "Piggy" because he does not want to play how we want him to play. Warconsole gives freedom to do so, as a social backlash, but that does not mean we actually have to. If you recall Flamia, that the graphs are not factual in real time. They influence player behaviour, but they are considered propaganda/fog of war, etc. Like it or not, this is how it is. Above all warconsole provides a platform for a social game, nothing more. It is only as fair as we make it, beneath the framework of the loose narrative. There are different perspectives on "winning", and yours is one of them. It might not be "fair", so knowing that... can we have fun anyway? It's just a framework, and lots of people seem to expect it to be more than that.
  4. I guess my conclusion is: If the community does not like the "withholding batreps" tactic in the campaign, it is clear that the gamers themselves have the social prerogative to punish the tactic. If some like it and some do not, well, there will be mixed benefits to the tactic. If it is the case that most participants hate the living f*** out of it, then the batreps involved will be down-voted, and not commended. Again, the campaign is a social thing, based on gamer culture, and even when everything averages out, a couple of stars difference is the will of the democracy. (edit: This does not mean it is fair, but it *is* the system) I guess I'm seeing that BoW, nor Corvus Belli, have any problem with the gamers themselves working this out for good or ill. Anything goes. Will it though? Will people start being "dickish" about the issue, as some people claim? I don't know. That's up to us.
  5. Oh good. I was worried that I was ranting on about weird shite. Thanks.
  6. Just a sideways post, not to be taken seriously, just musing. In a lazier-faire microcosm of gaming like this, I think all players need to understand that there are no rules, really, there is just community backlash within a context. This is a social game (with no rules) wrapped around a wargame (with strict rules). A campaign game surrounding a wargame. The campaign game is played with your feelings and expectations about it. We bring baggage to it on our own, it does not inflict such baggage. Many of us seem to expect campaign rules to be strict, like the wargame, but it is just a relatively open theatre for us to use. We make reports (labour, commodity), and where and how we do that is based on reward (faction success, prizes, satisfaction, approval). In some ways warconsole is providing a framework for an anarco-capitalist, vs anarcho-communist dichotomy. Community sits on one side for positive gaming experiences measured by enjoyment of the group, and on the other side there is the an-cap individualism of self-promotion and reward for "success" as they define it. The lines are blurred though. The campaign does not "care" itself. You bring what you bring, to it. This applies for commendations and stars (gamer celebrities/channels excel here because they have a following), and it applies to people deciding strategy for factions in this campaign. Popularity and social dynamics matter a lot. Campaign behaviour is decided by how players think the whole structure works, and how they are influenced by the social input of their allies and enemies. What is happening, is that people are being people, but the influence on us gamers and how we act is often left open systemically... so we self manifest campaign-gamer culture ourselves. It will be "bitchy" (sorry for the poor-taste colloquialism), or it will be "noble" (community fun is primary), but most likely "mixed" because this is a social experiment and everyone involved has a position which is equally valid from a Darwinistic/deterministic political-economy view. Have any of you looked into the "Stanford Prison Experiment"? Feel free to ignore this post. I'm kind of thinking out loud, about self fulfilling psychological causation, in a human sand-box (or close enough). I think the people having the most fun, are just gaming and reporting as best they can... and the big mountain of how the campaign works, is not more than a mole hill. If you find yourself getting invested in one faction, try swapping. It is a perspective adjustment, removing the in/out group bias. (for me it was, anyhow)
  7. Warren, do you realise that you are gaming right now? With thousands of people? A part of this campaign is your (endlessly patient and much appreciated) responses. You change gamer behaviour in the campaign, by typing words here. Will it be measurable? No idea. It is a thing though.
  8. Y'know, the bias seems against constructive critique, not towards the campaign itself. Whilst Warren claims to want to discuss game theory (earlier in this thread), it seems doing so here is sometimes perceived as griping. The idea of asking "what if everyone does this?", or even, "what if a lot more people do this?" is legitimate. That's game theory. It is true there are mountains being made of mole-hills, that does not mean this thread is not constructive. Please don't consider my posts as complaints. Please consider them in the constructive manner in which they are intended. Strange that in game theory, if everyone believes a system works a certain way, they act as if it does, and that can break it when people act accordingly. That's the nature of laissez-faire systems too, and they tend to result in monopolies when people realise how things work. I suspect and hope this is why the AI historian systems are kept secret. To know, is to have campaign behaviour altered. Right now, behaviour is being altered based on the rules which are perceived to be true. You may not like that there are some mountains being made of mole hills, but that's what this system includes. Fun, no?
  9. I really like that Warren is engaged here. It is great. Praiseworthy! I did not think feedback and discourse was unwelcome, based on 15 pages of largely good responses.
  10. Are you saying ALEPH failed, by succeeding in taking a location for a brief period? (how?) Or are you saying the player backlash is a psychosocial effect within the campaign accountability? (pfft!) Or are you saying that regular reporting over time is a systemic advantage? (wtf?) Yeah, I'm lost. Sorry I can't make sense of that statement.
  11. Do you know that it is one player who flooded reports? If you paint all players of ALEPH faction as if they are as organised and committed as him, well, I wish that was true! Hehe. Wait until multiple factions begin to flood reports, and see why a delay, a timer on multiple reports could be useful for everyone... ...or not...
  12. IF, and I mean IF, prominent faction members get organised enough to NOT report anything until the end of the phase... there is little point watching all the pretty graphs. Not for new players, and not for vets. I guess I would like the pretty graphs to mean something in the mean time. A small delay on each batrep becoming public may be popular. I don't know. I'm just putting it out there, and asking that the idea is considered. Thanks. I'll shuddup now.
  13. In Flamia, surges happened, and here in Wotan, it is happening again. You may be right that it is more about perceptions than facts. Wait and see. When a withholding tactic becomes common, you will see. It might or it might not become common, I don't know. In the theory of the campaign system, it is beneficial to a faction to withhold batreps, and then flood unexpectedly in a given location. That changes player behaviour. It is allowed and good right now. So, the most recent ALEPH example was just one player. Wait until you see several prominent faction members from each faction doing the same thing... but it might not happen. A timer on making reports public will not prevent flooding, but it will allow it to a lessened degree than now. Hey, love your work, feel free to ignore me, but this delay idea seems a good compromise to me. Cheers mate.
  14. When we hit the "public" button, a report goes public. If you wanted to smooth out the points dump, a staggered release of multiple reports would mean the player has to judge the time before a phase change, to be sure all their reports are queued adequately. This means that a surge of points happens, not instantly, but over time, which is more realistic from a campaign point of view of soldiers fighting several battles... I know report hording is a feature, but it seems clear that a portion of the gaming community here is not in favour of this tactic. I get that it is allowed and all, but my preference is to see the campaign unfold over time. Sure, they can just go with it, as we are now, regarding "flooding" of batreps. No worries. If it goes too far though, we will see less activity, less batreps generally, until the final moments of a phase. Is the timer idea I have mentioned beyond possible for next year? I think the idea has merit. Even if there is a two hour delay per batrep, that would mean the tactic of hording and releasing batreps is ... ameliorated, for those in favour and those against. EDIT: sorry I have no idea how servers work, but it just seemed logical to me that staggered releases would reduce the load. The reports already exist on warconsole, but making them public becomes staggered, and that would also change the traffic to the site.
  15. Just a thought. Here seems the best place to post. If ever it was wanted, adding a queue/timer to publishing batreps would be possible. If you publish a report it goes live. If you have ten reports to publish, a timer could be set to make numbers 2, 3, 4 etc, public... So one report every 8 hours may be plausible, or some other arbitrary delay. If a person has limited time, publishes 10 reports when they get the chance, they will be released with a "cooldown" timer. The player could see the cooldown clock on each points-scoring batrep, and know when the points would become live. In this way, holding back batreps is a thing, but also, the system could stagger the release of batreps from a single player so that the campaign seems to be unfolding in real time still. I like the idea of real time graphs changing, and that would stop if a significant portion of the players begin holding results back regularly. I guess queuing batreps up for someone who is busy, means they are being released as fast as possible with no added effort... People have lives. This would "smooth" out the shock of points dumps, and, make the campaign seem more than a last minute frantic points tally. I personally, think 8 hours per batrep is fine, but it could be two hours or 12 hours, or something, according to the will of the community. This delay/cooldown idea may also take the load off the server at key times. Again, just a thought. It might be "middle ground" for this issue, or something. Thanks. Trying to feedback/brainstorm.