Full Diplo Fast Steel Chivalrous Rex

[HeadHoncho]

I like 2/week, which is a good compromise if you have to choose one speed. Otherwise I have always said 3/week is better for anonymous games and not full diplomacy.

[bananas]

RL is a fickle bitch and I find that I am usually at one extreme or the other for the standard games. Sometimes I have all of my orders entered that night while others I barely make. I recently just had a turn run with only about half of my orders filled out because I never got back to it. I don't have much free time. I play two standard alamaze games and one pathfinder play-by-post game. I enjoy longer gaps between turns because that increases the odds that I'll be able to find a window of time to play before turns are due. Plus, every time things get slow and I start itching for more games, within a week or so, stuff hits the fan and I'm glad I don't have any more than I already do. The few times I did start more (pathfinder), my play suffered once real life rolled over into the busy stages.

This game is fantastic and you should definitely have a faster paced option available for those who want it. I, for one, though, will probably have to stick to the slower options. If forced to play a faster pace, I'd have to drop back to one game at a time.

Maybe I should just take a time management class...

[Ry Vor]

RL is a fickle bitch and I find that I am usually at one extreme or the other for the standard games. Sometimes I have all of my orders entered that night while others I barely make. I recently just had a turn run with only about half of my orders filled out because I never got back to it. I don't have much free time. I play two standard alamaze games and one pathfinder play-by-post game. I enjoy longer gaps between turns because that increases the odds that I'll be able to find a window of time to play before turns are due. Plus, every time things get slow and I start itching for more games, within a week or so, stuff hits the fan and I'm glad I don't have any more than I already do. The few times I did start more (pathfinder), my play suffered once real life rolled over into the busy stages.

This game is fantastic and you should definitely have a faster paced option available for those who want it. I, for one, though, will probably have to stick to the slower options. If forced to play a faster pace, I'd have to drop back to one game at a time.

Maybe I should just take a time management class...

No, I think your reply is what most would think.  Faster sounds better, but faster can be a problem.  There's really no Alamaze business issue here from a technical perspective - faster probably means more new game setups, but players missing turns or getting burned out is really the issue.  Even I have a problem with the M-W-F game I am in.

[unclemike]

I'm in my first M-W-F game and it's great. No more worrying about if this week is the one that the turn is due on Tuesday or not. Love the consistency and regular schedule of the game which keeps me involved. Now that I've tried it, I'll never go back to a slower frequency unless I'm forced to due to the size of our player pool and game signup requests.

[Greyhawk]

I would prefer 1/week, but could live with twice a week. I am really too busy for 3/week. But would try to make it go in a none diplomacy game.

[Ry Vor]

I'm feeling my suspicion was correct: that the silent majority is fine with 4-4-6, and might even find that fast. I think its easier on the community for people that want faster to just join an additional game or two than force everyone to comply with their wish for a pace that is more than 4x what players were used to before The Resurgence. We might have an occasional M-W-F anonymous game, but I'm not inclined to make that the standard.

[HeadHoncho]

Rick, I think you are rather experiencing a classic, perhaps textbook, case of confirmation bias. Please recall:

http://kingdomsofarcania.net/forum/showt...p?tid=9912

In that thread, which was accurately labeled in the high-traffic General Discussion forum, responders were 14-2 in favor of faster than 4-4-6, even if that could mean more money.

Even in this thread, I count 7-3 that could be construed as more favorable toward 2/week than 4-4-6. The common response is that the 6 day stretch is the killer in that format.

If you really want information, you may want to ask the clean question in General Discussion, do you prefer 4-4-6 or 2/week for full diplomacy games? Based on data up to this point, I think the answer that comes back will be VERY clear in favor of 2/week.

[Jumpingfist]

I'm feeling my suspicion was correct: that the silent majority is fine with 4-4-6, and might even find that fast.  I think its easier on the community for people that want faster to just join an additional game or two than force everyone to comply with their wish for a pace that is more than 4x what players were used to before The Resurgence.  We might have an occasional M-W-F anonymous game, but I'm not inclined to make that the standard.

Wasn't it like 12 that voted for faster turns when HH put up the issue.  So we have 4 or so here that like it slower and the silent majority wants slow turn arounds?   if they are silent they could vote either way.  You only requested those that like it slow to speak up and got less than a hand full yet the silent majority has spoken its mind.   My jumping math is just out of date but the alligator mouth is wide open toward the 12.
I have no issue with having slow games.   What ever gets more players playing.  But, to try and say there is any kind of majority vote for slower games is simply not true.   I have noticed almost every except one who wants games once a week, does not like the 6 part of 4 4 6.   

[HeadHoncho]

Shocker, JF and I see things similarly.

[Lord Thanatos]

Shocker, JF and I see things similarly.

Me too!