As you know, EteRNA is going to be released to the public in a few days. (Wohoo!) However, as good as evolving into a public phase is, I think this event calls for a change in the way we play this game, as it will get exposed to all kinds of gamers, users and trolls that might look forward to cause trouble just to get attention.
So far, I think the section that is more vulnerable to unfair use would be the RNA Lab and I have seen 3 proposals in the news post that seem like a good start, so I decided it would be a good idea to move my proposal here, in order to get more feedback.
My idea is this:
As the main incentive of the game is going to be getting your design synthesized, a lot of players will get eager to enter the RNA Lab and even create fake accounts to favor their designs; which in turn will create more troubles, such as an overflow of design proposals (an overwhelming number of entries might discourage players from reviewing and voting) and of course, that a design might get chosen unfairly.
In order to solve this, I propose using the point system that already exists to “buy” the right to enter the lab, post solutions and vote for designs, so players that invest more time in the game or are better at solving puzzles will have a greater chance to propose designs. Also, this system can lead to some interesting mechanics, for example:
-
You have to pay 5000 points in order to unlock the Lab. As the player won’t have enough points to make a proposal immediately, this will encourage him/her to check out how things work in the lab first.
-
Voting for a proposal costs a certain amount of points, that increases each time. For example, for the first vote you might have to “pay” 250 points, the second costs 500, the third 750, etc.
-
Of course, let the players know that they will get a reward if the design they choose gets synthesized and gets a good score, so they can understand this as an investment.
-
In order to make a design proposal, you have to “pay” 3000 points, but you are limited to 3 solution slots, as always.
The drawback to this idea is that it might conflict with the current Leaderboard, which uses the score to show the most proficient players. So, that’s it, what do you think?