raocow patreon

a question for everyone!

🕑 Added 2024-01-06 23:09:22 +0000 UTC

Comments

Nathaniel

I'm not sure I understand the proposal. Is the idea the royals are still chosen the same way, just two ways to pre-submit your list in case you are chosen? If so, I prefer to send in my picks less frequently, as they don't change often.

Chrismas95

I think the best part about the Royal system is, if you get picked, raocow will play a game you want him to. So just having a huge list of games for you to choose from would destroy that specialness. Of course it's more of what YOU want to do so I'm not gonna say it'd be BAD and be upset if it happens. But I like the nature of royals being elevated to that level where they directly choose games, enough to voice my concern. Even if it's not me, the idea is cool when a new Royal game pops up. But you're 100% right about chasing/waiting for/repicking people being annoying and something that should be eradicated. So I think a good compromise is that the Royal system stays pretty much the same, but every Royal submits their games now/when they join the Patreon. So a Royal is picked, you give them x time to reach out with their picks, and if they don't reach out then you use their submission instead. That way you don't have to wait AND they don't have to worry about being skipped because they had to be away for whatever reason. Then every so often you can make a post going "Hey everyone if you want to update your Royal submissions then do it now!" Since people would still be giving their suggestions when they get picked, this could be few and far between without much concern if you wanted it to be. But it'd still let people update their backup list. And you can always change the length of time between updates depending on how you feel about it. Maybe there are some logistic things I'm forgetting about here, but that's my preferred way of doing it.

That Guy If

Well...I dunno, man. On the one hand, I understand the sentiment behind all this. My Advent letter itself said it plainly last month: Who knows if I'll ever get the Royal Suggestion. On the other hand...neither of these really suffice to me on some very basic principles: For one, I can't simply give you, say, three games. That's because there's not 3 games I would love for you to play, there's more like 30. With the Royal Suggestion, I could at least have a conversation with you and curate my three picks according to what we discuss. While that would favor option 2...fact of the matter is, I'm more or less competing with 300+ other people. Yes, some people will simply not submit, but I suspect attrition will be lower than you possibly give credit for. And while there will be *some* overlap, there's going to be A LOT of different games, even if we only supply one game. Further, what worries me is that, with the inundation of games, you're gonna face some choice paralysis. That can lead to problems. The one feeling I kind of get is that you will go for safe bets more than stuff you've never touched. Like, there are many genres you haven't touched at all since this all began, and we have no idea whether you would take a risk or not on them specifically. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few: Open world/sandbox, space combat (not rail shooters, I'm talking full 3D movement), real-time strategy, hack-and-slash/Musou, Western-style RPGs with no turn-based mechanic. Plus, the allure of playing a romhack will always be there. At least, with the Royal Picks, you can be challenged a little bit. Now, I may be missing some important detail. The mechanics of what you would do with the list given hasn't been discussed, and I think that ought to be explained before we make final judgements on this. But still, something about this rubs me the wrong way, and not just because I have to revise the doc again after this 😛

Josh Clark

I don't mind updating my list of royal games frequently if the updates are either regular (e.g. every 1st of the month) or prompted systematically (e.g. every time an update is required, a Patreon post with a specific title is posted). Having to pay detailed attention to YouTube videos seems like a little too much effort to me.

Filby Pott

Considering I've been opted in since the beginning, around a decade, and still haven't come up as a royal, I definitely wouldn't mind changing how things work. I'd be more partial to option 1 personally.

BobisOnlyBob

I stand by my sentiment that you're addicted to changing these systems largely for the sake of changing them, but... I do like the idea of being able to submit my list of games, have it on file, and be able to update it for subsequent picks.

D

a downside to changing the system: it feels bad for the people that "missed the boat" for having their games be the only choice. (but of course contrast with missing the boat by never getting chosen ever under the current system) option (2) seems more in line with you wanting this to be less of a "set it and forget it" kinda thing; keeps people needing to be more actively engaged or they effectively lose their spot. but maybe option (1) is more of an in-between/gradual step from the current system. I don't have much of an opinion; I feel like it's a question if you want to make baby steps (1), or go all the way to the opposite extreme from the current system (2).

lawragatajar

I don't like the idea of having to resubmit every time. I can easily see myself just not bothering to send anything, since chances are, I won't be picked anyway.

Raekuul

I'd say maybe a hybrid of the two? Like, you have a master database that's made at the start of the year, but invite patapons to update their picks with every event

James Foster

I kinda wonder if it would be possible to get everyone to use something like backloggd.com (or whatever) to create a "Raocow Royal List" and then just have everyone's spot on the list be a link to theirs. Then it's only on you to remind the general audience to create a list and send the link to you, and on the rest of us to keep it updated. Maybe give 24 hours for people to panic update if they get picked.

Alex D.

I'd be more partial to the second option - like, I'm always finding new games that look interesting, and my top picks would definitely change over time. Having to commit to something for an entire year would make it a whole lot harder to figure out what I wanted to pick. Also, I might want to pick a game that's less than a year old!

Lovepunch

I'd go the first one. But would we still present three games? Or would it be one game each on the wheel? And if we do present three games, would there be any sort of repeat prevention on who's game was chosen?

Bluunaria

I say go with whatever will work best for you. Option 2 seems to make more sense to me; people who are more actively paying attention have better odds. Also, with option 1, if one of the games on a picked list gets played at some point after they submitted it, that could be an issue.

Ezma

I think its a good plan to do a form each time you need picks. Makes sure people are aware and still active in the community

WeskAlber

If it has to be one or the other, probably the first system. But I speak as someone who has their three choices in mind, and does not foresee them changing unless they are picked in another round.

camwoodstock

honestly if it has to be changed we'd go either way ngl. we have our picks already decided but like, no skin off our back if we have to resubmit. we guess we're mostly wondering if it's still 3 games or if this'd be like. You only get 1 game until it gets chosen? or smth?

onurubu

I would like the first option because I know that I miss events and announcements sometimes. So I’d rather have the option to be in the pool for an extended period of time.

Sikodin

I am def more leaning towards a yearly database. I get the issues of having a lock in on what we swnd but I would rather my pick in the system in case I would "miss" the next pick that comes around. And a yearly reset sounds great just to keep things fresh. :3