Brb Fighting Apocalyptic Robot War

File: ArmadamCover01.png (2MB, 3541x5016px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3541x5016px

It occurs to you why I have some Skirmishes listed here that have never been touched for well over a few years. And we can talk about them here.

Simply put Skirmishes are quite susceptible to [Bloat] and once the energy runs cold tends to be quite difficult to start up again. Most Skirmishes start simple, and gain momentum through people power. But it also grows to fit the needs of a game. When Bloat occurs, there is actually little remedy for it asides from an artificial reset in the form of a [Faction Change]
and while effective , only adds more unfinished knots in the metaplot or perhaps cultures it one could argue. Either way looking at these works for a time now, it's possible to perhaps renew interest in them but the angle of approach would require a risky amount of energy investment.

PS. The Statesmen plot gives me the shivers real talk.
PSS. The Silver Line plot is a DEEEEFINITE Faction Reset. And Perhaps even a gameplay re examination.
PSSS. The Descending Spiral is also quite spoopy but has the most potential to be resolved.

File: ZeroCover Kruss.png (359KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 700x700px

>>1473218

KRUSS SKIRMISH WHEN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5X69vREAg

>>1473218
Silver line was the point we were approaching wasn't it?

Descending Spiral was our original floors game?

What was the statesman plot? Was that Voss?

File: 6th_Anniversary_01.png (2MB, 2150x2050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2150x2050px

>>1473218
THE IDEAL* Solution would be to simply reduce design dynamically where it can occur ensuring that processing does not overtake the game. However even this pales in comparison with a skirmish gaining popularity, where turns begin to serve 40+ as compared to the 8-16 at the start of a game. There was a side solution to seek help with processing, but the math for it isn't perfect, because at the end of the day one artist is still handling the whole thing. An assistant artist would be for me, nearly unthinkable for a lot of reasons before it even concerns the artist themselves.

Simply put the ideal solution THEN would be to enforce a player cap.

On principle however, I am not very comfortable with turning people away either , but if it means a game stalling to a stop then the needs of the current majority would override such, no ?

If there are other skirmish runners out there, I would be interested in their input.

>>1473240
Honestly I don't see a way around player caps myself. Which sucks for me because I'm always late to your games. But I'd rather your games actually get a complete narrative than actually participate in them if it comes to that.

If we are getting silly numbers of players again, then I feel like the best solution outside of player caps would be to run a game that doesn't have a lot of mechanical complexity to ease processing.

Like say, IronHearts. Or ZeroSpace.

>>1473240
May I suggest copying Bastard's Boars with how player caps work? That is, a short sign up phase at the beginning of each session (a few hour's warning given) with a laidback approach to continuity. This would simultaneously solve what I saw as a problem reading through Swordborne where sometimes (it seemed) a dozen players might not be present to give orders and other players would take over their characters instead.

>>1473563
Is there... someway to design a game where there's a limited number of units, and each player can give orders to ONE unit? A single action each? The players call out the unit name, say what it'll do, it's processed in order?

So like, I dunno, a fleet mind situation? AI's controlling ships? The number of ships (and thus art time) is limited, the player processing is actually smoother? and it could lead to some wacky stuff.

Put in a processing limit as well. Something like "Processing action limit 3" so that ship would need 3 players devoted to it, each giving it one action to perform, for it to reach it's full action count?

>>1473596
There was a game called "Help" that did this.

It was fun but felt quest-y albeit a fast paced arcade skirmish.

>>1473563

SQ and IH had loose book keeping where only a name was needed to save your character and the story otherwise depicted a war on several fronts. Named character had little bearing on continuity- it was all self created. The only persistent voices were the commanders who had to show up on almost all the games.

>>1473596
Skirmish I see as a very light version of D&D -- players grow attached to their characters and try to roleplay them. A collective game like you describe wouldn't have that as strongly, I believe.

>>1473642
Yes, it would more resemble the 'quest;

>>1473642

Kob Quest best quest

>tfw I'll never defeat Obedia

>>1473240
You've used an art assistant before, is there any particular reason that you feel like sharing for the aversion now? Granted you're not obligated to answer this question, but I certainly am curious.

Regardless still waiting on that Zombie Quest ending :^)

>>1474003

I think Diary aping Monday's style to do her own thing withing ZQ is a little different than a secondary artist drawing on top of Monday's work do his stuff for him.

>>1473840

>Original WD not listed
:c
>Not wanting delicious salty tears

I'd vote Floors continuation, reboot, or Swordborne.

>>1474050
I think it works fine? I don't know I'm not an artist myself, but I imagine effects being drawn over top the map/units would look fine? I guess we'd have to see what the end result would be.

Ultimately it's up to the crazy man Monday himself, but personally I think the reduction in processing time would help a lot with various aspects of the Skirmishes themselves.

>>1473240
>>1473230
>>1473648
Maylie there has the best point. A defined and short unit cap does a lot to help with everything. I wouldn't say the majority enemy is bloat in any meaningful way, the majority enemy is simply the amount of unit interactions past a certain point.

If you do 1 full player or enemy action in 20 seconds, you do 3 a minute.

If you have 30 players, that's 10 minutes gone. If you have 30 enemies, that's 20 minutes.

If even a single unit takes a little longer than 20 seconds, the clock start ticking up. At the end of the day, it's the amount of processing that needs to be done for each turn more than what that processing actually is.

Floors with 10 people would run smooth as butter. Floors with 43 clearly does not.

I would suggest the solution might be be something like SQ, where there are troopers on the ground and also a TA layer where those not being shot at can work together to help those being shot. You could even combine it with another idea

>we need 10 soldiers
>anyone not soldering is now TA. For each TA action, X happens. If enough X, something good.

Gives everyone a chance to participate and help, even if they're not on the map. Unit caps can be made more paltable if the units on the map have a higher chance of dying, which can cycle in new blood.

That works in all settings, so long as there's some role for people not on the map. In floors that could be crafting, or pathfinding.

about bloat though, i never understood why floors needed an entire crafting system. That's bloat. Doesn't do anyting to processing time, but it does involve a lot of extra work

>>1474838

I think crafting was to put gear progression on the player and not the qm. With 40 people shit got bogged down hard with players taking multiple trips to the basement and magic pot.

>>1474929
this is absolutely the case. Anything putting stuff on the players purely cannot be considered bloat. Bloat is simply stuff that bloated the processing time of the processor.

>>1474838
TA actions are actually very useless unless it's to keep activity going with troops that have "retired". For this kind of thing a fast retreat/ botting option is available, somewhere during floors people forgot that's something they can do and just leave their units on the field to take up resources.

But consider the reason why people are given characters to begin with: Accountability. Should a skirmish ever be possessed with talking heads tha only spout optimistic armchair strategy for the majority of group interactions, it comes very close to QUEST territory which is the lowest form of interaction I feel.

Now TA's are generally only very good if a setting fiat accounts for their presence, and if gameplay makes their roles prominent. But doing so only multiplies complexity yet again. TA's SHOULD be in every game, but no one will ever take it. Will a player cap make that possible ? It would but t h e n you are putting an influence on the field whose motives may not line up with those on the ground. Gameplay of this kind exists mostly as a result of the meta allowing for it.

SQ and IH , and even WD would but not FLoors , SB, or "persisting" field Skirmishes.

>>1473240
Im okay with this, except i have one little issue...well tiny...Time zones...Aka: some of us live on the opposite side of the world, and when we do realize that a skirmish is going on..It could already be full by then...

>>1474947
If TAs are those who couldn't join the ground this map, but might another map, they aren't talking heads. They're those who help in a different aspect this time.

it's hell if they're floating demigods with no culpability. Its teamwork if they're not.

Solid reasoning though, so I can understand why you don't do that type of thing much.

>>1474943
>>1474929
Perhaps.

But the QM deals with generating items and rewards from scavenging, breaking, searching, acquiring + the result of asking "what if I combine Y with X" a lot more. It might be circumstantially easier on a processing basis moment to moment, but the overhead of constantly accounting for it adds up when there is no automated tracking.

I guess I'll give me two cents and try to address some of the common points I see cropping up here based on my own experience and what I've seen others do. (but mostly my own experience.)

Bloat:
>Exercise Iron self control. When adding new stuff to your skirmish consider whether it falls within the scope of the skirmish and whether it unbalances the game. Do not add stuff just for the sake of giving your players new toys.
I learned all of this the hard way running Mecha Mercs. The game was a bloated mess by the time I ended the campaign.
>Trust players to keep track of their own limited resources (Money,consumables etc.) This relives a lot of QM pressure. Most players are honest enough and/or will police each other. You should rarely have to perform an audit.

Player Management:

>When dealing with too many players you could try splitting them across multiple missions. Divide your meta game into "campaign turns" each mission has a player cap, but multiple missions take place each turn allowing each player to feel like they have participated as opposed to being sidelined for a game. Upgrading and expenditure of resources can be done between campaign turns. One problem I see though is that with truly enormous player bases it may take forever to more your campaign forward.

>Be careful what choices you allow your players to make. Ideally you want to give players lots of individual tactical choices (What build to take, ways to level up etc..) but very few collective narrative choices. (Be a Paragon or an Edge Lord). Also never let individuals make a choice that can affect the whole group. Skirmishes are tactical games first and role-plays second. Mecha Mercs had a great player driven command structure but I rather stupidly gave people the option to use illegal equipment, the use of which would incur the wrath of the in-universe NotUN. This caused friction between players who wanted to play lawfully and players who wanted to be edgelords. It went as far as some players PMing me to tell me that they would attack other players should they use illegal equipment within sight of their character.
It never came to that but I didn't like the idea of the degenerating into a PvP clusterfuck. (That's just me though. It's up to individual QMs to decide what kind of tone and dynamic their games have.)

File: Stat_Block_Compare.jpg (238KB, 819x804px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 819x804px

>>1475866

Game Design:
>Skirmish QMs must walk a tight rope between simplifying mechanics to ease processing time and maintaining enough depth in their game to keep it engaging. One thing to keep in mind is how many stat blocks you need to track per individual character and how many stat blocks you need to cross reference per action.
In Mecha Mercs, mechs had very dense stat blocks. (Base Stats, Pilot Abilities, Equipment, Loadout. Stats after all modifiers are applied. Ammo for weapons that used it.) More mecha on the map rapidly increased processing time and so I had a tendency to favour throwing trash mobs at the players since they died quickly and reduced my processing load. As a result missions were not always as challenging as I felt they should have been. After I ended the campaign and tested out EVA and Moe Drone Skirmish I found processing so much easier because the unit stat blocks were no longer so dense.

One weird trick for processing massive amounts of trash mobs.
Don't bother tracking HP on expendable NPCs. They will rarely survive a round of player attacks. So only record their HP if they take a hit and live. Otherwise assume they're at full HP. Saves a fuck ton of book keeping.

Also I actually have a question for the people who play skirmishes: When looking at stat cards do you prefer stats represented as symbols or text? (See pic related.)

>>1475907
Symbols, as long as they're evocative of their signficance. As I internalize the system and its workings, I begin to appreciate symbols' economy of space more than the explicitness of.

>>1475907

Considering when looking at individual player stats it will by necessity always be in text, I'm rather indifferent to text vs symbol on the sheets. It all means the same thing to me at this point.

>>1475907
Symbols are pretty lovely for easily referencing and comparing, but clean data-layout like yours means text or symbols are mostly equal.

File: AUSTERE_MEME05.png (321KB, 627x440px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 627x440px

>>1475866
>>1475907

Granted I did all the fun steps of testing the limits of the genre. Upgrading graphics, finding out what one person can get away with, and where these terminal points started to creak. Surprisingly, the system and the individual running it could take a lot of abuse, and adding just one more person to help with processing greatly eases this. [You will never need 3 unless the third is just a random guy fetching archives]

The result of all that experimentation ? Games don't have the ability to size down and should. IH had faction changes, SQ had front changes, WD with horizontal progression,

Floors is on the verge of taking this step with class extinctions, picking up the pieces, or choosing what has to stay and what to go-- Or simply not having a choice in the matter.

Unfortunately that campaign ended in a weird note and ended up doing the opposite of what I had planned. Fortunately the "bad end" will offer me the chance to try it again on its intended track.

Going forward the game might be ready to be [baked]. That is, all its mechanics will have a start and end, rebalances will occur on actions that takes processing and in game allowance in mind. Socializing checks might cost a full turn, and anything outside what your character is trained for may take a full turn as well etc.

However on the subject of agency, I feel that while player's shouldn't be denied the ability to "shift the game" it would be just as easy to make near impossible or very difficult. But not impossible. This of course is coming from someone who wants to run [Game as War] as opposed to [Game as Sport]

At the end of the day however, favoring a scenario where more turns / games are processed is more favorable than having /more choices/

On the Subject of Icons and Words however, and this is coming from me.
I would reserve icons for stats and components that will be showing up frequently in the game, from HP all the way to ammo count. The reason i do this for floors is so that those same icons can be drawn on the map when plays gain buffs, debuffs, or item descriptions are needed to be drawn [on the map itself] taking up less space.

>>1476156
On this note, streamlining character sheets is a game of its own for me. I like appreciate stat names that remain quite distinct while abbreviated, or easily discerned by context. "SPD" the player stat and "SPD" the spider gun mod, for example.

File: maximum possible streamlining.png (23KB, 281x158px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 281x158px

>>1475907
Symbols are good, as long as there is an easily accessible key.

>>1476278
I see that you too are a man of culture.

>>1476278
>streamlining character sheets
This, this is good. Also when I ran Epsilon Drive I'd rather you post your totaled stats once in the start of the mission/pre-mission, I'll copy it to a txt file to look at for processing. That way I can speedily track who has what.

File: Poka disguise.png (591KB, 1117x1231px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1117x1231px

Hey guys, what is going on in this thread?

>>1478439

WHY DOES POKA HAVE A MUSTACHE AND HOW DID IT MAKE HER EVEN CUTER!?

>>1478441
But I am clearly not Poka, does Poka have such a classy mustache?

>>1478439
Hiya, Mysterious Moustached Stranger.

Monday is discussing plans for future games and the thread is also for chit-chat about skirmishes in general.

Now is the time to plead ask about the future of Floors!

File: Poka smile02.png (551KB, 1117x1231px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1117x1231px

Personally I can only speak for Floors because that is the only game I played for any length of time.
if you disregard Ten Spades which nobody remembers anyways

Now to actually contribute something meaningful to the topic, let me say that I am perfectly fine with sitting out should a player cap is to be introduced to the game. Let us face it, without a dedicated computerized system the processing will always be the main bottleneck for the game’s pace and the more players we have the more exponentially will the amount of work will grow.

More players will require more/meaner enemies, bigger map, later more rewards etc. so no matter what we do every new player that is added will compound the work needed. People can withdraw from the battlefield yes but players even if new have no incentive to leave the battle area even if they cannot post because participation is the only way to progress (i.e Level up) for them. Or if we talk veterans, it is very hard for one’s conscience to helplessly watch the rest of the team struggle knowing you could have made a difference if you were there and things could have worked out better.

New players freely popping out of the ground mid map makes this even harder to manage even as some of them die off, it demands the GM to dynamically adjust the challenge constantly. That is a literal nightmare for any GM since you can never know what to expect, as the player base could change literally from one day to the next. While again changing the enemy make up, like bringing in reinforcements usually just serves to artificially slow down the progress of the map. It is a self feeding spiral down to insanity.

So in the light of that I say that I am perfectly fine with limitations on the player numbers, as hard as it may be for everyone else.

>>1478459

Poka get in chaaaaat

I'd agree with this. Looking at WD it was a 12 player cap and maps were done in a matter of days not weeks. Granted pvp makes it easier when both sides process themselves so to speak but compare it to the last mission which slowed down tremendously. You could also limit phases to 30 minute intervals and such. Doing so requires a time commitment which should be doable with the summer approaching.

File: Ten Spades TANKS.jpg (692KB, 1680x2200px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1680x2200px

>>1478459

Not remembering

>>1478645

>Detected possible malicious code in image file.

I'd post the infantry sheet too, but 4chan doesn't like it for some reason, but I assure you I have it.

File: Deus_iconraw.png (28KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x350px

>>1478459
These were all very fun things to commit but at the end of the day i have to wonder if

> Short Complete battles
or
> Long involved daily slogs

Are better. Both have good points and that's typically why I change skirmishes from time to time. I don't think there's a happy middle much like how there isn't the perfect season. [Winter is Great. Summer is also Great. Fall is P Neat but fuck Rainy/Finals Season. ]

It's also true that player count contributes to processing, but its also just one number in a long multiplicative string of numbers that dictate this lovely thing called Exchange. That is the amount of Energy in, and the Energy Out.


It should be noted that while there's a lot of dynamic things in play , the last thing I typically worry about anymore is enemy difficulty, or what some consider to be "balance". Like it or not, enemies in this game are consistently not planned to be "beatable" but rather has a character to play. That could range from "pokey farmer towne that partakes in dark ceremony" to " 100-Floor old Abyssal Gaol Keepers"

[continued]

File: DTVSET01Turn23.png (1MB, 1220x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1220x1200px

I guess what I'm driving at here is that other than [Bloat], another element would be
[Salt], Less the actual emotions players go through and more the social engineering that has to happen afterwards get to be quite draining. I'm uncertain if people know this but a Monday skirmish typically consists of

> A game being tested and developed
> A game that requires impersonal adherence to the magic circle**
> A gm that does not tolerate political/social engineering to make "a point"
> A gm that believes in Artistic Autonomy religiously.
> A game as War.

If you cannot keep yourself and your arguments within the magic circle, then rational discourse cannot take place ergo limiting the amount of resolutions that /can/ take place. Anything that threatens the psychological well being of the person running the game will be /eradicated/ with extreme prejudice in the interest of the game's continued existence.
>THIS POLICY HAS NOT CHANGED FOR 7 YEARS.

Your rights as a player or even as a human being isn't encroached upon under this in fact it reasonably suggests that you are expected to carry yourself with proper poise as your GM readily does the same. By design, skirmishes trust the players implicitly.

Does this mean you cannot play if you cannot comply under these conditions ?

No, it means you can continue to play up until these conditions conflict heavily with your beliefs and you either step off on your own volition or the ruling body gets rid of you for something extremely shitty you did. It is on you personally, as the player if these are terms you can willingly walk into.

Does this mean that you cannot voice your opinion ?

This whole thing implies that you have an opinion and will use it. So no, your freedom of speech is respected, but if that respect is abused it becomes salt.

As a player, your ability to manage this element would visibly help. Resolutions trumps complaints.And generally having FUN supersedes even all of that. I can't speak for others on their terms but it's fair to say this concept exists across the board.

Also, I realize I posted this in reply to not-Poka but the whole subject on Salt happened on its own and is not exclusively aimed at not-Poka

I agree.

I got.....Confused by that...Someone explain?

>>1479956
Moony you're fine :v

>>1479956
Shit. It's been a while since I've translated Monday speak. I wonder if I can still do it.

>>1478715
quick grueling games with 8 turns a day and month long games with a turn of day each have their good points. Player count isn't the main problem but does significantly contribute to processing.

The games aren't designed with balance in mind; are not built to actually be winnable.

>>1478723
Players whining about dying or being treated unfairly is demoralizing to the QM. He's got no problem with people voicing opinions but just temper expectations that the games he's making are not perfect and that as a player you directly contribute to everyone elses' enjoyment.

>>1478459
>Ten Spades
Man that takes me back.

>>1480041
Oh okay o3o

>>1478645
Oi! Warsaw, Indonesian Gentleman lost all of the Epsilon Drive stuff, and I lost all of my own skirmish rulesets. Would you happen to have the Epsilon drive stuff and be able to post it here for him to recover?

Ontop of the other rules, this is one I came up with and passed around and wasn't completely hated.

1) Things need to be recorded and codified, at the very LEAST they need to be codified for the processors so -they- don't get confused about how things should play out. (Even if the players don't know what ArrowArrowBallRing does, the processors need a document specifically stating what the fuck it'll do)
2) No overrides
3) No waits, that's what overwatches are for.
4) context sensitive actions are forbidden unless your class abilities specifically allow for it (IE: Dark Intent)
5) vertical progression of numerical stats should have a hard cap, barring specific and rare class abilities (master classes), or equipment (legendary equipment)
6) context sensitive rule zero actions take a full turn and cannot be combined with any other form of action, and are not guaranteed to work (IE: If you have to roll 2d6 for the results when you wouldn't normally have too.)

More guidelines really for how to cut down on processing time and salt overall.

File: 02_01dsfsdf.jpg (211KB, 750x838px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 750x838px

I regret not trying out running a skirmish before, it's way more rewarding than I thought it would be. And the workload is fantastic! I still make mistakes all the time (misplacing a character, forgetting a skill, etc.) but I guess this is one of those things that get ironed out with experience. This bloat talk is making me nervous though since I have a tendency to continuously shove new stuff in my quests. For now Bastard's Boars is relatively smooth, but I only have 8-10 players or so. I can't imagine what it could be like if I got more than that.

Anyway, if for some reason you want the opinion of someone who just started out concerning the player cap question: I consider updating speed to be way more important than welcoming everyone. Furthermore maps are better when made with a certain number of players in mind, I think? It adds variety to not have every map be as large as possible to accommodate everyone who could show up. I know you said that you're not comfortable with turning people away, but players who couldn't get in still lurk in the thread and post observations/ideas. They experience the whole thing, just in a different way than active players.

If you really don't want to put a hard cap but still want a reasonable number of players I guess you could work out a fatigue mechanic? Like: If you fight in two battles back to back you have to sit one out and recover. It would permit a rotation within a large player pool, even though I get the feeling that it would seriously annoy some anons.

>>1481378
Link? First I've heard of this and our art looks really decent.

>>1481391
>>1481378
If you allow me, I think the art of Bastard's Board is absolutely GORGEOUS! I love every part of it, my hat is off to you Cegremo.

File: tumblr_inline_onab465qlf1usupma_540.jpg (60KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x400px

As an Old Fuck from the days of IH, I'd like to add my two cents to this odd thread. I have a lot of memories from those threads--most good, a couple bad. I remember there being quite a fiar amount of salt sometimes, too.

Bloat was definitely a problem. I was part of IH for some of Ragnyll (Paisley), A majority of Voss (Cotton), Some of Aeon (Iksender), and as the CO for Clovis (Plaid). For each of the factions, the mechanics started out quite simply--Ragnyll was almost entirely composed of specialists. Voss, on the other hand, was meant to overwhelm with faceless, expendable mook forces that ran off a resource counter not too far removed from the Tactical Point system used in World in Conflict. Aeon was, as far as I can remember, a CC beatstick force that had a similar Tactical Point system to Voss. And Clovis, finally, was a build-your-soldier points-based thing that seriously would have alienated anybody not familiar to Monday's madness--but we'll get to that later.

Now originally, as stated, the mechanics started out simply. As the campaign wore on, though, stuff just got introduced and introduced and introduced and it burdened the entire campaign. That and people playing more defensively as character progression organically (or otherwise hamfistedly) made its course, but that is very much unavoidable in the course of these sorts of games.

>>1481391
Here >>1455606
We just finished our sixth session (but second thread).

>>1481430
Thank you, I poured a lot of love into it.

File: 1492766360744.png (18KB, 299x276px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 299x276px

>>1481448

Now I understand that upgrades were needed to help keep the game challenging and enticing, but it really bogged down the system in the long run--for all the campaigns I was part of, but definitely Voss since I remember that one most fondly. When Monday finally got around to introducing sprites instead of painting every single unit tab on the hex-layered board it definitely produced a bump in turnover time for every turn, but that was eventually lost because of, well, bloat.

The bloat created a secondary problem: accessibility. Now it was nice to get a new recruit every now and then--and every new campaign had with it maybe one or two new players. But as the campaign wore on, looking back on it all now, it was a helluva lot to keep up with if you were a new player throwing yourself into the ring with a bunch of older vets. Unless you had spent an afternoon archive binging on the old threads it was near impossible to get a fix for what was going on--the most images that were posted in each of the combat threads were hex layered pieces of playboard covered in painted unit markers or sprites and explosions. The RP threads were not much better--long text blocks of exposition interspersed with game mechanic errata, and both in a breakneck race to see which could be more convoluted than the other--the former through romantic intrigue and general shenanigans, and the latter through crunchy mechanics.

File: 1492835466486.png (11KB, 299x276px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 299x276px

>>1481493

The accessibility, in turn, led to an inclusivity of the playerbase. Back when we were running on the /tg/, the skirmish quests were starkly different from the other quest threads that flowed through the board. It didn't exactly help that there was an IRC channel where we could all chat in the off-hours. It was nice having a hangout like that in the days before Discord, but it also seriously closed us off to new members in another way.

All that being said, it was fun while it lasted--combat was frenetic and it allowed an avenue that wasn't fanfic for a writefag to go and, well, writefag.

Anyway--just wanted to say all that because this thread was here.

>>1481529

Bun has done an excellent job with his landskirmish. Vets just have more access to classes and gear but they aren't inherently better. It's a good pick up and play game so new players can jump in any time.

What happens though is people flake so you'll still end up with a group of dedicated players mostly and as a player of that game while it's fun I do want to see some personal progression. I think Cegremo found a happy medium by having exclusive gear and custom sprites. Vets aren't inherently better but they do have more options.

>>1481898
He also has the single best knight sprites. So that's a plus.

I'm not very fond of player caps, mostly because of the different time zones we live in. It's highly likely that many people can't even get the chance to sing up for the game before it gets completed. Also, given that most of us have a life outside here, I actually like a slow paced game where it takes a week or two to complete a floor, but it becomes a problem when that's not intended and it's only happening because of the amount of players or the amount of things the processor has to take into account/work on. So I won't really oppose to that solution if you people deem it necessary.

>>1473208
What ideas do you have for a Floor's restart?

>>1480580

I do not, but I know where you can find it.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive.html?tags=epsilon+drive

File: Angry burn girl.jpg (54KB, 728x441px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 728x441px

>>1481529
>>1481493
>>1481448

Hey, hey you! I REMEMBER WHAT YOU DID!

>>1481378
Don't worry about updating with too many things, just add them as you like but you need to give your content air to breathe so you can sort of "vet" them, and of course design around multiplicity, New classes means new weapons, tactics, assets, and balances, while a new enemy means new threats, pressures and choices to make, as well as a revisiting of your base stuff.
Skirmishes will always expand until they reach an "midgame" and from there it starts to become more a question of, " Let's see how far we can go with this " until endgame.

As for player caps. They've been enforced before, but typically the type of game determines what's allowable. Outside of that is me probably needlessly challenging myself to attempt something here.

>>1481959
Floors has been conveniently designed to have been more clear and less banded with features. Each class can be detached or reattached, whole features like crafting are capable of being turned on or off due to cannonical inworld switches like Trainers and supporters in the roving band.

A restart would simply be a reduction/ change of cast and crew while most of the established mechanics remain. This in turn might result in an interesting and uninterrupted game where much of the old content can simply be revisited as the story progresses. Otherwise any new classes might be the result of the setting afterwards.

.
As Cotton says it, Accessibility is kind of a curve. The best time to [join] ANY skirmish as at the beginning and if something goes on for more than a few months it's usually with the help of the community that new people get integrated. Much of the meta here gives the illusion of looking necessary but really it may end up being an artifact of the Old Guard finding something new to do. Either way that might be a good sign to drive towards MID or ENDgame.

Floors did something interesting where intentional "spots" were made in story arcs where new people can join and the rules allowed for it. After that, it's a matter of surviving one mission and deciding for yourself if this is the game for you. Games like Floors are definitely possible to join in the middle if you keep yourself to a small sphere of goals, after a few missions, win or die, it starts to get a lot more familiar even if you didn't take the time to study the Lore or the Meta. What I would advise against in these situations is to not try to compare yourself with other established players.
Everyone shares the same goal, and doing your part or attempting to do your part and failing is fine in early segments. However, never expect my games to hold anyone by the hand or ease down for the sake of new players, surviving after all-- is never promised in these games.

File: FLOOR05JennyDuel07A.png (581KB, 880x763px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 880x763px

>>1483003
Obligatory image btw

>>1483003
This clears up a lot of lil problems i was having. Ie: comparing myself to veterans during floors thanks... o3o

File: 3 - Just daydreaming.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>>1482197

EVERYONE REMEMBERS WHAT I DID YOU HARE-BRAINED SHAM OF A DOCTOR

Besides I'm over that.

>>1483059
I would note that it is impossible to catch up to them UNLESS ATTRITION or DEATH HAPPENED.

>>1483016
Jenny Cena 2016 was the best wrestling match of that particular year.

>>1481959
Fair point about the time-zones, it is one of the reasons a distinct player cap is a problem.
>>1480614
I have a few disagreements with this ruleset idea. I can read that it's Floors specific, but at the same I think you are overgeneralizing problematic trends.

1) Is true, but only because things that work one way should work one way repeatedly. Attempting to codify everything is an impossiiblity without straightjacketing the gamespace, and sometimes things work a little differently because of underlying modifier conditions or sheer actual dramatic fun. I think that should be acceptable.

2 ) This is dependent and contingent on the processing and player load. Is a turn 10 minutes of frantic activity? Sure, override in that space if you can delete your original post. Is a turn 12 hours and people override six times? No, stop that.

3 ) We have a link post feature for a reason, and a Wait just an overwatch by a different name. Overwatch Heal is the same as Wait for X to take damage, then heal. Overwatch retreat is the same as wait for enemies to show. What staggers processing is convoluted 4 player plans that require variable wait chains, and those simply cannot be done.

I would actually like to a see a fix for this that is a little insidious, but not neccessarily against the spirit.

Remove the cap that all your actions have to happen in one post.

So you're not waiting, you're posting once with one action, then posting your second action when the thing you're waiting for happened. As a processor reads actions in the order they happen, this avoids a lot of the kinks in overwatch wait chains automatically, and leads to better player initiatve. It's also possible with the much higher /qst bump limit.

My real issue though is 4) and 6) combined. Context sensitive actions are everything this game is that isn't already codified in rule 1). There will be hundreds of instances of once-in-a-lifetime situations across a given game, and the rules must have leeway to consider this acceptable. As a player, you also cannot read the map fully as well as the person drawing it, and you're operating on limited information. Contextual actions help provide player agency given this informational assymetry. Your real problem is with IF-THEN and IF-THAT-THEN, which are logic chains that a player should never, never be allowed to use. At the very most, it should something like

>if this is a door, open it

because they'e having trouble reading the map.

5 ) Depends on the game and the sort of game you're playing. In a mathematically balanced wargame of equal outcomes, you want number equivalence. In a play by post RPG battle hybrid, Jenny Cena having a demon inside and the ability to jump cleave twenty guys in a flourish of death is part of the charm and beauty. Someone else being cool does not diminish the cool-factor of your own character or or squad or mech.

Because at the end of the day the major processing hurdle is action amount combined with action detail.

3 actions that are all "Attack" is not the same as one 1 action that is some convoluted contextual rearrangeent of the local space ("I Attempt to bribe the guard to commander their tank").

But I think the major killer of games of this format is salt, or anger, or annoyance with other players getting a "better deal" than yourself. It builds up slow, this is inherently a social activity, and if you're spending time in the same thread with the same trips with the asme people, casual gradual annoyance over whatever-it-might be will erode any sense of desire for play.

And limited contextual actions ( 4) + 6) ) along with the possibility of growth ( 5) ) and then nixing hard down on the tactical exploitation that might make up for a lack of straight numbers power ( 2 + 3 ) is not going to decrease salt, or annoyance, or players being grumbly about percieved raw deals and imbalances. It's going to increase it because it leads to a tension grinder where the only outcome is a codified set of movements like chess, the rules don't bend, and being here longer automatically accrues better power. That's not a good outcome, and I think that tendency should be avoided. It'll detract from the fun little nugget of death combined with roleplaying combined with death.

Instead I would suggest a focused underlay that allows for context sensitivty within the rules without changing much. Have a resolution mechanic that is reliable enoug that you can transplant it to various factors without much difficulty, and then attempts at trying something not strictly codified is inherently easier, as you can deduce the outcome from the basics.

Then the major time loss is extra art generation time to accomoate the action, and for that, just... don't make extra art, maybe? Okay that one is a hard problem.