Should Psychodrama give OrgCredit points?

OraelOrael Member, Administrator, Moderator, Gods Posts: 344 Creator
Several people have shot me messages or idea'd that Psychodrama is too easy to game for OrgCredit points. Enough that I thought I would bring it here to see what the prevailing opinion of it was. 

Should Pyschodrama (The biennial Ikon Tournament) be a part of the org credit scores?

Should Psychodrama give OrgCredit points? 42 votes

Yes
40% 17 votes
No
59% 25 votes
«1

Comments

  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spotMember Posts: 4,560 Transcendent
    edited June 5
    Having recently participated in the gaming of Psychodrama for org points, I’m inclined to agree that it can be gamed. But if the goal of org points is to encourage engagement with various systems in game, I think that’s valuable.

    I don’t know enough about the points system to know how much a given org gets for their standing in the tourney, or even how valuable each point is. Maybe it could be something like a single point for each participant, regardless of how they place. That way gaming the system still requires you to get your citizens out to the stage to play psychodrama, but doesn’t encourage people to intentionally lose or forfeit to boost another player’s standing. Maybe?
    I make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • CoralineCoraline Member Posts: 510 Virtuoso
    I always wanted to try out psychodrama, but somehow I always miss the end of the year. I think there should be points for it, though, like Daraius said above, it encourages participation in the various systems of the game.

    Maybe the points given can be reduced, somewhat? But I think reducing it to 1 point per participation is a bit extreme.
    The Venerable Masasachi Dith, Tranquil Sophist tells you, "You will never reach enlightenment if you are in such a hurry."
  • PortiusPortius Likes big books, cannot lie Member Posts: 1,585 Transcendent
    I'm pretty torn on this. I think I mostly agree with the others.
    I like it being supported and I like it being competitive. But the current tournament structure for scoring just doesn't seem to work. Xenthos is definitely right that you can get weird results from needing to challenge people who are close in rank. That probably needs addressing.
    I also hate that there's an incentive to play as late in the year as possible. After all, your opponents might not have time to find opponents and take the top slot back! You might be able to address this by hiding the rankings, but that might have other negative side effects. I haven't really thought about it much.
    Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,746 Transcendent
    What if you can tournament challenge someone only 1x per year, and the point spread is removed (so you can challenge someone regardless of comparative score)?  This way it doesn't matter as much if you wait until last minute or not.  You can't "farm" someone because they are only fightable once per year, and the person gets an orgpoint just for trying even if they lose.
    If you really want to encourage frontloading challenges, give a bonus in points to winning matches in the first half of the year (I am not sure I like that so much since it skews things, but is at least an option to address the end of year crunch).  Gets more complex though...
    I think just adjusting the points per my first post is the best way to start.  If people are feeling like it is still being overgamed, look into tweaking the tournament itself a bit (as per this post).  Lusternia has so many little things that people never bother with already.  Psychodrama being part of rankings has invigorated it and I like that.
    image
  • AlexandriaAlexandria Member Posts: 173 Master
    I don't mind it being part of the rankings, but the points awarded are far too high for too few and easy to manipulate at present. Awarding participation to all with a small boost for high rankings seems fair.

    Czixi, the Welkin murmurs, "Fight on, My Effervescent Sylph. I will be with you as you do."

  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,187 Mythical
    no, it shouldn't be rewarding orgpoints. The points are too high and often, the 1-3rd place are too close that it really makes the difference that an org can get those last year-end points and maintain or raise a rank. Being fightable once a year doesn't help. You can still rig the rankings. Unless you go around limiting fights and forcing that you can only fight someone on the other alliance, you still are going to rigging.

    Personally, I'm not really sure why psychodrama is a yearly thing anymore. Before orgcredits, hardly anyone cared about it. Now, I think people only care about the orgpoints. I think doing away with the formal ranked tournament and rewarding 1 ikon per win (still keeping the once a month limit on challenging a person.) would be better for the system.
  • AurikAurik Member Posts: 51 Capable
    I think it should reward orgpoints, but perhaps that should be disabled while some formats are tested/experimented with? The current format rewards throwing fights and farming wins too much, with the top three being the only spots that matter and all.

    Xenthos' idea of having participation be the bulk of points would be a good idea, especially coupled with only being able to challenge someone once a year for ranking points. Perhaps structure it something like the following
    -Psychodrama match within org, 1 point per match, maximum of 10 points per year org-wide.
    -Psychodrama match between 2 orgs, 1 point per match for each org, maximum of 10 points per year per org. So staying within current alliances, it's effectively an extra 20 yearly points, but if Hallifax can set aside differences to play a few rounds with Celest, or Glom with Mag, then there's more points available.
    -Psychodrama rankings, 15/10/5 for 1st/2nd/3rd place, or possibly 10/7/5 or 5/4/3 even.

    I think this way, participation would matter more than ranking, but ranking might give an important edge (as opposed to being the be-all-end-all as it is now). While farming people who don't know or care about the system for wins is still possible, being able to challenge them only once a year limits how high your score can get, and another org is less likely to indulge in win-trading with you, so you're encouraged to actually play the game and get good at it.
    image
  • GurashiGurashi Member Posts: 239 Mythical
    I frequently come in last place/near to last place in Psychodrama, but I don't mind, because it's so much fun! If it didn't reward ANY org points then I'm worried  there would be lots of people who wouldn't see the point in playing it anymore! I'm all for a restructuring of points and maybe give different points based off whether you're only play within your org, or if you play against people from other and/or rival orgs.
    Many greetings! I do commissions!

    ‘It’s important to be kind. You can’t know all the times that you’ve hurt people in tiny, significant ways.
    It’s easy to be cruel without meaning to be. There’s nothing you can do about that. But you can choose to be kind. Be kind.’


  • GabeGabe Member Posts: 50 Capable
    I think we should be encouraging and condoning any and all player participation of IG activity. Taking away from player enjoyment/participation, might only have a negative impact IMO. 

    If it deters players and detracts from it, I think it has a butterfly effect in which other things begin to dwindle. 

    Basically, what Snald said. 
  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spotMember Posts: 4,560 Transcendent
    I voted No, but only because “Yes, with tweaks to way points are awarded” wasn’t an option. 
    I make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,977 Transcendent
    I understand the sentiment that orgcredits puts an onus on learning/participating in psychodrama, but there needs to be A. better restrictions on how tournament games are played (I don't think anyone wants that, admin or players) or B. less points rewarded.

    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,746 Transcendent
    Or C) Shift points around so it doesn't reward winning so heavily but incentivizes playing (which is what a lot of us have been suggesting options for).  Doesn't necessarily need to be "reduced points," but needs to be more broadly distributed across everyone instead of concentrated on just three people.
    image
  • SteingrimSteingrim Member Posts: 1,133 Mythical
    Orael said:
    Several people have shot me messages or idea'd that Psychodrama is too easy to game for OrgCredit points. Enough that I thought I would bring it here to see what the prevailing opinion of it was. 

    Should Pyschodrama (The biennial Ikon Tournament) be a part of the org credit scores?
    It is only easy to game when the admin don't enforce the rules, no?
    You tell Wyrden Ravager Tarken, "Come to Gaudiguch. I'll give you the title of Grand Moth."
    Eyes peering skywards as he thinks, Ironbeard the Magnanimous says to Sksez, "Welll, on my gooD lis *hic* t, we have....Stei *hic* ng *hic* rim.U..Xypherv....Luu *hic* hghaigh *hic* hhe....Breandryn....."
  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,187 Mythical
    Steingrim said:
    Orael said:
    Several people have shot me messages or idea'd that Psychodrama is too easy to game for OrgCredit points. Enough that I thought I would bring it here to see what the prevailing opinion of it was. 

    Should Pyschodrama (The biennial Ikon Tournament) be a part of the org credit scores?
    It is only easy to game when the admin don't enforce the rules, no?
    What rules? There is nothing that says you can't lose on purpose. and when the reward was just ikons, it didn't really matter. Counting towards orgcredits, it encourages, and is most beneficial to have, an org to have one member be the 'winner' and get as many points as possible to raise to the top of the rankings.
  • SteingrimSteingrim Member Posts: 1,133 Mythical
    Ayisdra said:
    Steingrim said:
    Orael said:
    Several people have shot me messages or idea'd that Psychodrama is too easy to game for OrgCredit points. Enough that I thought I would bring it here to see what the prevailing opinion of it was. 

    Should Pyschodrama (The biennial Ikon Tournament) be a part of the org credit scores?
    It is only easy to game when the admin don't enforce the rules, no?
    What rules? There is nothing that says you can't lose on purpose. and when the reward was just ikons, it didn't really matter. Counting towards orgcredits, it encourages, and is most beneficial to have, an org to have one member be the 'winner' and get as many points as possible to raise to the top of the rankings.

    Before I answer that, have you been rigging it?
    You tell Wyrden Ravager Tarken, "Come to Gaudiguch. I'll give you the title of Grand Moth."
    Eyes peering skywards as he thinks, Ironbeard the Magnanimous says to Sksez, "Welll, on my gooD lis *hic* t, we have....Stei *hic* ng *hic* rim.U..Xypherv....Luu *hic* hghaigh *hic* hhe....Breandryn....."
  • KethaeraKethaera Member Posts: 848 Transcendent
    I think psychodrama is a lot of fun, but it is entirely too easy to game and the system as set up currently incentivizes gaming it. I want more people to learn to play it purely for the game itself... so, I voted no on orgcredits, but I'd be fine with splitting them more into participation for everyone. OR, making it so you can only challenge people from opposing orgs? It could still be gamed, but at least there'd be more incentive to compete properly. As a third, make it so there's some individual incentive(as opposed to org-wide) for being 1st/2nd/3rd.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    People have been rigging their games before orgpoints were a thing, just take a look back in history and you only see two names: Dyson and Isabeau. Personally I don't mind psychodrama awarding points, but there needs to be a cap and possible change in how points are awarded. Let each match be 5 points of the cap of 50 or some such that puts it in line with the other conflict events that have caps, or the library, etc. But see no need for it to be rewarded so heavily when it can be gamed easily, and just is.
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,977 Transcendent
    Even if Psychodrama were played perfectly and fairly, there are ikons out there that are just crazy overpowered. Anybody fighting Ayisdra for example would probably be hard-pressed to find a win. Admin don't need to be worrying about balancing psychodrama when there're still combat issues to address.

    image
  • KalnidKalnid Member Posts: 552 Fabled
    My issue is more with the nature of psychodrama as a whole. There's some piloting involved, sure, but most of it's just getting value ikons and, to my knowledge, the best way to do that is... winning the tournament. If everyone had every ikon reasonably available to them, sure, go for it, but as is? Not super my jam.
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Not to mention the game itself has pretty much a singular meta that will never change, so all you're really out for is nine specific ikons. Also also, why are commons the most potent of them all?
  • CoralineCoraline Member Posts: 510 Virtuoso
    Wait, commons are the potent ones?
    The Venerable Masasachi Dith, Tranquil Sophist tells you, "You will never reach enlightenment if you are in such a hurry."
  • MakaiMakai Member Posts: 413 Adept
    Things you'll notice when you look at ikons. Commons often have little to no cooldown, good priority, and basically have the same output as any others. Specifically for scenes, props, and stun-based characters. You'll want the higher rarity for large damage numbers, though uncommon also has high damage. Meta is pretty simple:

    1) Find a character with a 0 cooldown stun chance
    2) Find a character with a 1-2 cooldown stun chance
    3) Find a character that does at least 9 damage unassisted.
    4) Find a scene with a 1-2 cooldown power stealing
    5) Find a scene with a heal
    6) Find a scene that boosts your big damage type
    7) Find a prop to block opponent's character (I suggest a love letter - 0 cd, 0 power, common prop 50% chance to succeed)
    8) Find a prop to block opponent's scene
    9) Find a prop that guarantee's character block (Flame of Glinshari is one, but super expensive and not viable)

    Gather those things, and congrats, you win. Meta is attempt to land a stun with a character, then use your big toys to absolutely smash into them. You can often just two hit someone and win.
  • DysDys Member Posts: 673 Fabled
    I'd voted no but I do like the idea of points for participation, capped. 

    Psychodrama is neat and I used to play a lot but I agree with Makai that the meta is too simple - there's a 'right' answer once you collect good ikons. Heal chars, defence props, vamp & time scenes don't get used much because it's better to just go for damage. Maybe that could be shaken up with some tweaking down of initiatives and power costs to make alternate strategies viable. At the moment I get smashed by turn 1 stun, turn 2 damage, turn 3 damage. Lose.

    Disorganised thinking and ideas:
    • Characters are the only source of damage and stun so character neutralising props are king. For a lot of scenes if you neutralise the character you waste their scene too (damage boost, vamp, time).
    • Agree about love letter but sometimes it's too slow at 4I so opponents can build round it, which is good. Hoop snake is my nemesis - 50% NEU CHA, 2I, 1C, 1P. Increase power costs for NEU CHA props so it's more of a strategic decision to use them or make the high % chance ones even slower.
    • Defence props are a big gamble because they need to match your opponent's type and they need to act before their character to work. With a Def boosting scene there's a good chance you'll waste both the prop and scene. Reduce all their initiatives and power costs by 1-2 or maybe make them block two types of damage.
    • Eternal ikons are strictly better than non-eternal ikons as well as being flexible so that you can put them in any gestalt rather than having to stick with similar types. E.g. Wakabi chick is 30% stun, 4I, 0C, 0P but Tauro is 50% stun, 3I, 0C, 0P. Eternals are prizes or paid for with credits so they should be better but a straight swap that makes a lot of your collection redundant is less interesting. I'd like Eternal ikons to increase tactical flexibility somehow but that would need coding. Like if you had an eternal ikon you could have 4 of a type in your gestalt so you could choose from 4 props. Or if eternal ikons had two modes. I don't have a good suggestion.
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 412 Expert
    It is only 30 points. Compared to the ease of picking up 50 points from timequakes which in theory can take just 10 minutes and give you 50 credits as well? I think it is alright.

    I always mean to play earlier in the year but forget!

    With the amount of players now, the amount of people you have to organise to win it is making it too much effort but it is a fun little game

    I would like to see more unloved things added to orgcredits like freezetag and vengeance but like with psychodrama, how do you stop it being gamed and yet make it available for all? 
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 412 Expert
    Orael said:


    Should Pyschodrama (The biennial Ikon Tournament) be a part of the org credit scores?

    It is also annual not biennial
  • AyisdraAyisdra Member Posts: 1,187 Mythical
    Kistan said:
    It is only 30 points. Compared to the ease of picking up 50 points from timequakes which in theory can take just 10 minutes and give you 50 credits as well? I think it is alright.

    30 points can be the difference between places, and 100 more credits for your org. With timequakes, every org should have their 50 points by year's end, so it basically is like it doesn't count.
  • KistanKistan Member Posts: 412 Expert
    Ayisdra said:
     With timequakes, every org should have their 50 points by year's end, so it basically is like it doesn't count.
    I would say that this was an argument for taking timequakes out - everyone gets those 50 points.

    30 points could be the difference but there are easier ways of getting 30 points than getting 1,2 and 3 in a much more contested pyschodrama 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 6,746 Transcendent
    Coraline said:
    Wait, commons are the potent ones?
    Ikons have three stats: Effect, Initiative, Cooldown.  The power cost & rarity are derived from these.  The stronger the ikon, the higher the rarity.  However, this ends up making high rarity ikons rather difficult to actually use in psychodrama (because they tend to have high cooldowns, high power costs, be very slow, or all of the above).
    My two auction ikons are either commons or uncommons, forget which, despite being unique for that reason.
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.