Is there anomosity between the ToL and FoL / i42 Forums communities? If so, how can we repair the relationship?

Off-Topic (Thronepass)
#281

Care to define what exactly you see as a benefit from this? Some variance is good but playing a “game” decided largely by RNG is hardly fun. Winning a coin toss is hardly an experience worth replaying again and again.

Depends on your definition of “worse”. It’s undeniable the original intent of the game was to be less mechanically heavy than it currently is (and especially moreso than it used to be). We’ve been trending towards reduced mechanical info literally since launch, and I think that trend has shown continual benefits to date.

Most people get bored and stop playing a game when they stop getting new things out of it. Arbitrarily capping player skill does just that and means that an entire large chunk of your playerbase is literally on a timer.

You don’t have to worry about other games if you don’t want to.

The developers do.

Failure to do so leads to death as a company.

If they are forced to consider other games, it seems hard to justify anything you propose if you are outright refusing to consider an angle that is paramount to the game’s success.

1 Like
#282

As do I.

I haven’t had time for that since the launch of ToL, but have at least 10,000 in the immediate genre, including ToL.

Same. I also want it to succeed amongst its competition, and foster more player interest in social deduction.

It exists for a reason, and again, outright dismissing any information just because you don’t care certainly disqualifies your opinion more than taking a few months off to build a car.

3 Likes
#283

I don’t want there to be an arbitrary limit on how good people can get at the game if that’s something they care about

Obviously that’s not what everyone is optimizing for but there shouldn’t be a point where you can’t keep improving

I’m not saying we should make it like the left graph in the following picture (nor would that be possible) but I don’t want it to be like the right graph in the picture either (given the assumption that the player in question wants to improve)
Drawing (1)

#284

If we look at the bottom graph the second derivative is negative (you improve faster at first, then more slowly) but the first derivative is always positive (you are always improving)

also I was trying to draw a graph without a horizontal asymptote

anyways that’s basically what I see as desirable

#285

Generally it looks more like an elongated, stretched-out S

Most things do have a skill floor

On that note, I also don’t want excessively high skill floors because that also arbitrarily shrinks the skill corridor

Old Knight had that problem

#286

Also skill vs time generally has plateaus and stuff

But the point is understood

#287

Like so

image

2 Likes
#288

I basically agree with that I was just too lazy to draw anything more complicated than a normal curve :upside_down_face:

1 Like
#289

I think in addition to both of your points I would add ‘at rand, all players have ~reasonable odds of achieving their win condition given average players,’ ‘at rand, all players have ~reasonable odds of achieving their win condition given really good players on all sides,’ and ‘the outcome of the game will primarily be determined by which side plays better’ as things I consider worth optimizing for

ToL currently passes the first and fails the second, FoL currently fails both but mostly because NKs are a thing (I think it passes both if we ignore neutrals), and I would say both are doing decently on the third front but both could also use some improvements in that regard

2 Likes
#290

(For the purpose of this analysis I’m ignoring bugs, like, obviously if a class is bugged and can’t win then that’s going to make it fail the first point)

#291

In addition, I think trying to drive the current average towards our “really good” should absolutely be a design driver

1 Like
#292

Because losing due to factors outside of your control is conducive to fun and long term engagement

3 Likes
#293
#294

No, Arete. Swing is good. To reach 50/50 is not a goal.
I love especially backswing. It makes the game more interesting.

#295

You almost lost? Dw you can still convert someone and persuade a neut to side you. Never give up.

#296

I’m not saying that the goal should be 50/50, or 45/40/15, or whatever, I’m saying each side should have a reasonable chance of winning at rand (not necessarily 50 percent/equal/etc.)

Do you dispute that each side should have a reasonable chance of winning at rand?

2 Likes
#297

That isn’t swing

2 Likes
#298

Reasonable but not equal

#299

Yes that is what was said

#300

But I never said equal

You’re trying to argue against my point by defeating an argument I never made and don’t endorse