Since we can't seem to get many hax logs, I think we'll have to make a major script change. Without some solid "proof", we really can't get too detailed about the formula. So, we have to keep the formula ambiguous. Obviously this isn't the preferred way of doing things, but we're running out of time, and we need to get on with Act 2. So here's how I propose to handle this:
- I'll make a post that I have been working feverishly on the formula
- I've been fascinated with it since X-Act first brought it up to me, and I think it has potential to be one of the most important developments in the history of the metagame
- I've been working very closely with X-Act, Caelum, Obi and Brain to code an implementation of an Anti-hax Clause in Shoddy Battle that uses this formula
- I have a working version of the clause right now, and would like to get some more hands-on testing
- We are concerned about players possibly gaming the clause to their advantage, which would be antithetical to the whole purpose of the formula
- We're not quite sure about how to handle this risk.
- For now, I'm not going to list all the specifics of the clause. But, here are the basic functional elements of the algorithm for determining the winner:
(List variables with long multi-word descriptions, not letter designations. But, the long descriptions will each start with the letter to be used later in the final formula)
- I have opened a private server for some basic playtesting to work out a few kinks with the formula. I will give the address to a few PR members who seem like they are analytical and open-minded to the basic premise of this endeavor.
This will kick off the next major stage of the prank. I am now targeting March 29th as the advertised "go live date" for the Anti-Hax Clause (read up this thread to see details of how I plan to "stall" until April 1st). So, after I post, we'll need to complete Act 2 fairly quickly (3-4 days). Based on our experience from early Act 1, I don't think that will be a problem. There is a lot of energy around this thing. When the discussion starts getting heated -- 4 days is much longer than it might seem.
Details of the formula will be intentionally kept very vague, because --
I am proposing that we don't just have a "hidden variable", I think we should announce that we are keeping ALL details of the formula completely secret "in order to ensure that the clause can be implemented fairly for everyone". This announcement will be made sometime in Act 3, but no more than a day or two before the go-live day. It is very important that we don't actually tell anyone that the formula is a secret. Instead, the Mad Scientists will simply be vague and non-committal when posting. Preferably, we'll keep the mad scientist posts to a bare minimum. A little passive-aggressiveness is a wonderful tool in situations like these.
This will make the big reveal much more impactful. Since, after this hits the real server on April 1st -- people will likely be clamoring with loud complaints like
"This is ridiculous! What exactly is in this formula? And why is it secret in the first place? This is a travesty!" Blah, blah, blah...
So, we can announce the big reveal with something like,
"Obviously the community is very upset about the new Anti-hax Clause, and several people have demanded a full accounting of the components of the clause. Although this may ruin the competitive efficacy of the clause, we will now disclose the exact specifications for the formula...
(description... details... formula with letters that spell A-P-R-I-L F-O-O-L-S... the end)"
This actually may be a better way to set up the ending than the original script. I'm open to feedback. But, if you give suggestions, please take into account all the dynamics going on right now -- the biggest of which, is a lack of much detailed info to support the formula.
We'll need to get villains and heroes lined up quickly after I make my post. Right now, I'm thinking most of the heroes and villains will post under the pretense that they have logged onto the private server and seen the Clause in action. Even the villains who oppose the formula, should give a back-handed "testimonial" that the formula "works". NO ONE should indicate that the implementation is broken or even buggy. Villains should oppose the formula on ethical or competitive grounds -- not based on some idea that the formula doesn't work, or can't possibly account for all the different battle variables correctly.
All details of the formula and it's implementation, should simply "not be mentioned". Just don't say anything about it, good or bad. Just leave it out. This may make a few outsiders scratch their head, since it is a somewhat obvious area of concern. But, we will instead divert attention to the rhetorical arguments and simply treat the clause itself as a fait accompli.
NO ONE should indicate that any of their battle outcomes were "overturned" -- unless you are specifically asked to post as such. It is very important that we maintain the position that the clause is meant to only affect battles where extreme hax occurred in a close match. This will be claimed to be a very small percentage of battles. That way, when this goes live on the server and battles are overturned left and right -- people will be furious! If anyone is willing to doctor a log and make it look like a good example of a "hax overturn", then we'll use that log and post it as evidence. Otherwise, the fictitious private testing of the formula will only serve as a foundation for Act 3, where the admins declare that it will be implemented live on the Suspect ladder on March 29th.
If other PR posters ask you publicly or privately to get on the server, tell them:
"Ask Doug or X-Act. I was specifically told not to give out any details of the private server. I don't want to piss off the admins."
I will ignore them, stall them, or give them a bullshit IP address and claim ignorance when they claim "I couldn't connect. Please help". In general, the "insiders" to this prank need to ignore the "outsiders" in PR as much as possible. We need to create our own storyline for the joke, and not write the story in the form of responses to people that are not in the cast.
I'll wait a bit for feedback on the changes I am proposing here. But, I'd like to make my post tomorrow - so if you have suggestions, please make them ASAP.
