|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 5, 2022 20:43:37 GMT
In the event that no one wins either book, is there a 'closest to victory' bonus for each book or just for one, and there is a mechanism to decide which? Not that I have any stakes in the matter  So far there's only been the one 'closest to victory' bonus in weeks where nobody won. Give me a bit of time to analyse the data and see if changing that would be worthwhile and practical. ETA: Nobody won in weeks 1 and 2. In week 1 kieran was the only player of Sky Lord to survive more than two fights, but still got less than half way through the book. The bonus went to schlendrian, who made it to the final door in Escape from the Sorcerer but couldn't open it. In week 2 greenspine was the only player of Fortress Throngard to kill the Dragon. The bonus went to kieran, who made it to the final fight in Freeway Fighter.If we're going to give 'closest to victory' bonuses for both books in win-free weeks, the rule should be backdated to the start, with belated bonuses for kieran and greenspine. And then we start arguing about bringing in a 'closest to victory' bonus for the adventure that nobody won in weeks where only one of the adventures had a winner. And about 'per adventure' bonuses for highest kill count. Who wants to open those Pandora's boxes? You said yourself that changing the rules part way through was akin to opening Pandora's Box so I'm going to vote against it because I sense it will probably do more harm than good. I'm against the potential rule change, mostly because I think that, thus far, it's been clearly and fairly determined which attempt was closest to victory. However, I'm not strongly against the idea, and I would support it if it's what the majority want to do. I'm in favour for two reasons: First, until now it has been easy to decide, but there might come books where it's harder to conclude who got further in two totally different books. Second, while I'm absolutely fine with playing the challenge as is, I'm of the opinion that it would be positive to have more options to get points for actual progress rather than rolling up stats beforehand.
I don't have a problem whatever is decided, but I think it would be a good change. I would probably even go as far as separate the books entirely, so one person winning book A wouldn't mean there wasn't a closest-to-victory prize available for book B. It's a bit of a meh week if you only have one of the two books and it's a really hard one and the other one is easy, and you're just hoping to roll 7 14 7 because that's the most profitable return. But I don't mind whatever. Those are the main arguments on the issue. Let's put it to a vote. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 5, 2022 21:23:39 GMT
I haven't been participating, partly because I don't take an interest in the FF magazine, and sadly don't even have most of my FF collection anymore. However, for me, coming close to victory in say Crypt Of The Sorceror, Spellbreaker or Legend Of The Shadow Warriors is still many, many parsecs away from winning, while winning more fights is comparable to getting more points in a computer game, or losing Monopoly going bankrupt at a later point. So, I've * generously * got some time for bonuses, but very little, which is why I voted just one for each.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Mar 5, 2022 22:22:21 GMT
Would the new rule (if there is one) be applied retroactively?
|
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 5, 2022 22:47:53 GMT
What's the consensus on retroactively applying any new rules?
As the person who'll have to do the extra work if it does happen, I don't mind, but that possibility is why I'm trying to get this sorted out now rather than leaving it until a massive backlog can accumulate.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Mar 5, 2022 23:03:24 GMT
I'm definitely opposed to retroactively applying the potential rule change. People made decisions based on the rules at the time and they possibly would have made different choices had the rules been different.
|
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 6, 2022 0:21:43 GMT
I'm definitely opposed to retroactively applying the potential rule change. People made decisions based on the rules at the time and they possibly would have made different choices had the rules been different. Agree with this (not surprisingly, being only a moderate supporter of the change at all). So, will there be a second poll about retroactively applying the rule change? |
|
|
|
Post by schlendrian on Mar 8, 2022 15:50:57 GMT
I'm for both boni to both books, no retroactive application.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,462
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 8, 2022 16:46:57 GMT
I'm for both boni to both books, no retroactive application. Seconded |
|
