Should Psychodrama give OrgCredit points?

Orael

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?

Daraius

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?

Coraline

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.

Xenthos

I wouldn't mind seeing it change to rewarding participation more than victory.  I agree with your thought about it encouraging use of more game systems though.  We have been training a bunch of people to play psychodrama (poor Gurashi has spent so much time on his gestalt and had a lot of bad matches this year, and Stratas gave me a run for my money on my match with him).

Right now #1 gets 15 orgpoints, 2 gets 10, 3 gets 5.  If there is a tie in the same org then you only get one (so if two people in your org tie for first you get 15 points once, but not 10 points for second).  Ties are thus to be avoided.

You also have to play someone within a certain points score of yourself, so once you hit a score you can only play other people who have won.  That is where the real "gaming" has to occur, you need to find lower ranked people and have them fight each other, then challenge the winner and hope the winner doesn't beat you (I have been avoiding the intentional throwing of matches which makes the thing a bit more tense, but rigging it seems really counter to the spirit of things).

Diminishing the weight of winning vs. participation would reduce the need for trying to find / make people who are close enough in points to challenge.  Leave some weight for top points (5 for first, 4 for second, 3 for 3rd, 2 for 4th, 1 for everybody else?).  Still nice to rank high, but no more than a successful design.

Portius

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.

Xenthos

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.

Alexandria

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.

Ayisdra

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.

Aurik

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.

Gurashi

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.

Snald

I learned how to do ikon battles because they became part of org credits. If the goal of org credits coming from different parts of the game is to get people to engage in those parts of the game then I believe it's worked. At the time of writing this, there are 15 people on the rankings. I don't think I've ever seen more than maybe 4 pre org credits.

Gabe

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. 

Daraius

I voted No, but only because “Yes, with tweaks to way points are awarded” wasn’t an option. 

Maligorn

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.

Xenthos

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.

Steingrim

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?

Ayisdra

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.

Steingrim

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?

Kethaera

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.

Makai

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.

Maligorn

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.

Kalnid

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.

Makai

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?

Coraline

Wait, commons are the potent ones?

Makai

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.

Dys

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.

Kistan

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? 

Kistan

Orael said:

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

It is also annual not biennial

Ayisdra

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.

Kistan

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 

Xenthos

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.