On 24 Aug 2013, at 21:18, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Charles Walker > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't understand. My reports on Okinawa and Parties have never been late >> and neither of these aspects of the game are overly complicated, although >> they may be flawed in other ways. The problem we have is not enough >> gameplay, and you're proposing to get rid of what little we have. > > Okinawa and Parties have not contributed to productive gameplay at all > (except the general election, but I think that my alternate plan for > that will work just as well), and they are distracting from the core, > which must be supported first and foremost. And they increase > complexity of the game, which leads people away from it. I basically agree with this, but I don't think it's related to the lull. >> As for why we're in a lull, that's because a bunch of players left, all, >> AFAIK, for RL reasons. Not an overcomplicated ruleset (although there are >> improvements to be made in that area, and I'm a fan of omd's proto, I don't >> think it particularly affects activity levels). Note that your proposals >> don't reduce the recordkeeping burden of any of the vacant offices (in fact >> they increase it slightly where budget switches are transferred). > > While this is true, it a) frees up more effort and time from other > parts of the game and b) increases interest in the vacant offices. Maybe. I don't really think it will sway anyone's decision. >>> Proposal: Handshake Deals are Enough (AI=3, PF=120) >> >> FOR, but I don't think it will make much difference. Contracts are a much >> more natural idea. > > I don't like them. Care to elaborate? I just think we're having the wrong conversation. We should be talking about new gameplay ideas.
