The conclusion to the series on the necessity for the Holy Trinity is forthcoming (WTB 4hr time block). Just a quick thought, open-letter question I had today…
What about the game mechanics that facilitate gameplay vs. deal with the consequences?
In some games, I do not have the ability to form a group (depending on mode of play). Within that same game, I cannot adjust the in-game fall-out that might ensue with who I am grouped with. The pairings might be bad, people with ulterior motives, etc. I have one recourse and one only: to ignore and hope to not be paired again. I have no active influence in who I am paired with, and only marginal influence in the feedback on said pairing (at least there’s some form of feedback?)
Compared to other styles of play, with full discrimination in forming groups as well as the vested feedback present. I might meet and greet, build a group, evaluate others and if they don’t perform as desired, they never, ever get an invite again. With time, the problem weeds itself out.
Clearly, both offer certain rewards and each with their setback, but there must be a way to negate the madness of random players (former) and the madness of time/energy (latter) involved with making play happen. Bite-sized frustration periodically vs. initial frustration buy-in for long-term peace?
Clearly, a proper post will [most likely] follow, after concluding the present series, an upcoming series on scaling and inflation… while still being behind on current affairs(le sigh). Thoughts, if any, on grouping systems, are welcome.