The Nine (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
thenine) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
overjoyed_ooc2017-01-22 03:04 pm
thenine) wrote in overjoyed_ooc2017-01-22 03:04 pm
Entry tags:
State of the Game / Cap Discussion
Hello, Joyers!
As we approach our next reserve and app cycle, we find ourselves needing to discuss something we never thought would come up in the first place: a cap, be it player or character. How awesome is it that an AU-type game is even having this discussion? Thank you so much for taking this game further than we ever anticipated.
But with that being said, we're adamant about maintaining our level of quality and expedient responses to you and worry that we won't be able to do so if the game expands too much by way of players. We're also concerned about inclusivity and manageability, respectively.
Many of you were kind enough to lend us your thoughts on plurk, which can be viewed here (it's public, so anyone should be able to see it).
For reference, we're sitting around 37 players and 43 characters at present. Thus, we are considering the following options:
50 players with a total of 150 characters (3 character cap per player).
60 players with a total of 120 characters (2 character cap per player).
65 players with a total of 130 characters (2 character cap per player).
Your feedback and thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to post them here or on plurk, we will be managing and going over both as we decide which option is best suited for the game and the mods respectively. We have temporarily enabled non-member commenting here so prospective players are also encouraged to comment.
Additionally, our decision will be made prior to reserves opening (a little bit under a week here) so that no one feels blindsided by it or is caught off-guard by the changes.
Of course, if we should find that our work is less or more than anticipated, we can always change the cap again to reflect this--by no means is a decision set in stone, everything we do is experimental in nature.
Thank you for your time!
- Mods.
As we approach our next reserve and app cycle, we find ourselves needing to discuss something we never thought would come up in the first place: a cap, be it player or character. How awesome is it that an AU-type game is even having this discussion? Thank you so much for taking this game further than we ever anticipated.
But with that being said, we're adamant about maintaining our level of quality and expedient responses to you and worry that we won't be able to do so if the game expands too much by way of players. We're also concerned about inclusivity and manageability, respectively.
Many of you were kind enough to lend us your thoughts on plurk, which can be viewed here (it's public, so anyone should be able to see it).
For reference, we're sitting around 37 players and 43 characters at present. Thus, we are considering the following options:
50 players with a total of 150 characters (3 character cap per player).
60 players with a total of 120 characters (2 character cap per player).
65 players with a total of 130 characters (2 character cap per player).
Your feedback and thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to post them here or on plurk, we will be managing and going over both as we decide which option is best suited for the game and the mods respectively. We have temporarily enabled non-member commenting here so prospective players are also encouraged to comment.
Additionally, our decision will be made prior to reserves opening (a little bit under a week here) so that no one feels blindsided by it or is caught off-guard by the changes.
Of course, if we should find that our work is less or more than anticipated, we can always change the cap again to reflect this--by no means is a decision set in stone, everything we do is experimental in nature.
Thank you for your time!
- Mods.
no subject
But ultimately it's up to you guys! Whatever is least stressful is what I'll support.