James_D_Fawkes
patreon
Lucky Numbers
🕑 Added 2019-08-13 01:09:53 +0000 UTCI've been thinking recently about the problem of Lucky Numbers, that is $3 and $7 Patrons, because for a while, I was just taking the "???" and randomly giving you guys access to higher tier stuff, where "randomly" means, "Whenever it occurred to me and I thought it fair."
But that doesn't seem fair to those guys, so the idea came recently to standardize those ??? rewards a little more by giving them access to certain Chapters-in-Progress links. Not all, to be clear, but rather those chapters whose numbers are multiples of 3 (for both tiers) and 7 (for $7 tier only). Since interludes aren't numbered, of course, neither tier would get access to those CiP links, and the same would go for sidestories like the Alternate Essence stuff.
For example, in an arc of Essence that is ten standard chapters with two interludes ("arc 8," say), $3 and $7 Patrons would get access to 8.3, 8.6, and 8.9, with $7 also getting 8.7. Naturally, $13+ Patrons would retain full access to all CiP posts, including interludes, which would mean they get 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, and 8.a and 8.b. That is, $13+ Patrons would have all twelve CiP links, as opposed to $3 Patrons, who would get 3 CiP links, and $7 Patrons, who would get 4 links.
What do all of you think? Feel free to also comment and add your thoughts on the matter.
Comments
Skrubstar
Ah alright. Yeah, that seems to be more fair towards the 7$ patrons. It just didn’t seem very fair in that context
Caractacus
In a more standard story, with chapters numbered sequentially rather than arcs that have chapters going from 1-10 or so, it would actually be more even, with $7 Patrons getting a total of about half the CiP links. It's skewed the way it is now because of the arc structure. On the other hand, I could discount the arc structure and measure the chapters according to what their number would be in that more standard setup. In that case, 7.7 would've been equivalent to "chapter 49." (Ha! Ironic.)
Skrubstar
I don’t think that sounds very fair to the 7$ patrons, paying what amounts to twice as much as 3$ patrons for one more CiP link. Wouldn’t it be more fair to give them access to half? If each link is roughly 1$, (3 for 3$ and 12 for 13$) then 7$ patrons are paying almost 2$ per link(4 for 7$). They’re also paying amidst half as much as the 13$ patrons so wouldn’t it be more in line to give them access to half of the CiP?
