What’s the mean level of absurdity that we should aim for in our deck of companies (real or fake)?
This question is extremely important, as we want to make sure our game doesn’t get too serious. The last thing we want is to make our game feel like a classroom activity for ENGR103 or something. Therefore we want to find the sweet spot where players find the companies entertaining to read about (and also be surprised that some absurd companies actually exist or existed) but also make sure they are not too silly. Because of this, we believe that we should test the game with varying levels of absurdity to gauge where the most fun is had.
Would players be more inclined to play on teams or individuals when pitching?
We understand that a lot of players may have to overcome fears of public speaking, or feel like they may not have the skills to execute a convincing pitch. However we also want all players to participate. This is a tradeoff we should negotiate to achieve the goldilocks zone. Right now our hypothesis is that working in teams would probably be the most entertaining. Nevertheless having two teams and only three rounds could result in slime players not participating – which could increase the likelihood of some players being bored or feeling excluded. Nevertheless, some players might find comfort in being able to ‘hide’ and just take more of a spectator role.
How will the point system be implemented?
To make this game work, it’s all about balancing and managing incentives for the fake company, real company and VC. To make it balanced, we should just try playing the game instead of thinking of hypotheticals. Some examples of balancing are: 1) when the fake company gets chosen by the VC should they get more points? Should the VC lose points? 2) should the VC get more points if they correctly judge which company is real in earlier rounds? Should the VC always get punished for getting it wrong? 3) If your company doesn’t get chosen should you get point deductions?
