I've seen complaints about it in threads, and I myself find it frustrating when one or two people end up with about half of the points for a trivia game between them/2-3 times more points than anyone else, or when one person dominates franken despite the one-turn-sit-out rule (I will admit to being guilty of this myself, having nabbed about half the choices in at least two franken games to my memory). I would like to suggest a few possible variations mostly for the speed trivia rules (and also the franken a bit) that may benefit users with slower internet connections or whose refelxes aren't quite as impressive as those 2 or 3 people who always seem to win.

1. The second or third or fifth person to post the right answer wins the round. This doesn't usually work when only a few people are playing a game, but in threads like on Sylestia where several dozen users are all vying for victory, this would work splendidly. The placement of the winner (2nd, 3rd, 5th to post, etc.) can be changed each round to make the game a little more exciting than it already is. This is easily one of my favorite variations on speed-based games, and I highly suggest it for use on Sylestia.

2. Raffle the round's win off between the first few people to post the right answer. This is a little more work intensive for the person running it, and also doesn't work very well if only a handful of people are playing, but it can give people a chance to win that may not have had it before. This can also be modified so that everyone who posts a correct answer in a specific window of time gets raffled for the round's win. This variation usually works better for Franken games, though it can be applied to trivia as well. It does tend to make games take a little longer, so it may not be ideal.

3. Set limit on the number of rounds a single user can win to, say, 5-10 rounds. This would allow certain speedy users to still greatly improve their chances of winning beyond the 1 for participating, but would also give slightly slower users a fairer chance as well. A similar rule could also be implemented in the franken games, where the one-turn-sit-out doesn't quite cut it for the usually high number of players.

4. Implement the franken game's one-turn-sit-out into the trivia games, either as an alternative to or alongside the round-win-limit.

Just a few suggestions for you guys to consider to help balance out winners on the forum games. The rules currently in place worked perfectly at the beginning of Sylestia, but I think with the sheer number of users we have now, it's time for a change. <3

I really support the first idea. The others don't make a lot of sense for trivia I think because winning is just for kicks really but the first one is most fun I think. They all make sense for Franken but are more work, so I think the first one should definitely be implemented.

I have only participated in a trivia once but I think another way of doing things could be to keep it the same as it is but have people only able to win one prize (keep the randomized list the same and for X number of prizes, if a name is there more than once in the first X numer of names, just go to the next name on the list). That way, doing well in the trivia still helps your chances of winning a prize (but doesn't guarentee it, same as before) so that it feels like a game where your answers matter, instead of tending towards a more-random raffle, but the prizes still get distributed to more people.

Of course I think adding a completely random raffle might not be a bad thing, or other types of games. I think the stuff in my first paragraph would ideally be paired with prize-giving forum events that are non-speed based and potentially non-answer based, so that people who for example have poor internet connections will know where to participate for a better chance of prizes. To me, I think keeping a game feeling as much like that style of game as possible, and providing a greater variety of challenges, might help people have more fun when they know there is a type of game that they are more likely to do well in.

Personally, I would be in favor of a limit on the number of point a person can get. I enjoy playing speed trivia just because I like to dork around and have fun in the thread, but I go in knowing that I have almost no chance of getting any points beyond the one participation point.

I think this is especially important with the fact that the community is growing quite a bit, it seems like there have been a lot more participants in the last couple games than there were a month or two ago. It says something that out of all the people participating, two people had nearly 50% of the first answers. This wasn't from a lack of other people knowing the answer right away either, since there was more often than not a whole page or two of correct answers immediately after the question was posted.

When I think of Forum games, I would always hope that they don't start at 8pm, because I never get to join unless I'm at school XD

But besides that point, I think that maybe limiting a person who won the first question to not be able to post for the next 2-3 questions? So that people who are just seconds away get to win too. Or maybe if the person won the last week's speed travia are asked to sit out for next week's speed travia (if there's any) so that other people get to win too. Just a suggestion though.

I feel like making people sit out would work only if there wasn't anything else that worked. Cause I'd hate to be a mod and have to tell people "okay, you aren't allowed to participate in this particular game."

Also, I kind of feel like limiting points, while that would work better, would still not work as well. In the only trivia game I did, I came in second place in points. Two of us definitely did get a lot of points as compared to others. But do you know, I didn't get any prizes at all, and by my count six people who didn't get any answers correct first (who only had their name on the list once for participating, and none for any answers they gave) got a prize, out of ten prizes.

That's the way randomness works. The way the game is structured, getting a ton more answers right than other people doesn't guarentee me a prize. And I'm absolutely fine with that. I would rather do well and get nothing in a game where everybody who participates, regardless of how well they do, gets a chance.

But that's why I think my suggestion works better than limiting points. Assuming there are other, non-speed/answer based games so that people who don't do well with speed games get chances for prizes, then a speed trivia *should* be biased towards those who do well with speed games. Otherwise there should just be no games at all, and random raffles instead. If there is a change to be made, I feel that limiting it to one prize per person per game helps distribute the prizes as it seems like is the goal, and stays more true to the feeling of the game. That way, if you're good at speed stuff, you have the increased chance, and your chance increases more the more you're good at it - but the chance to get one prize. That would feel fairer to the people who are good at the game and have it so that there's still the chance for people who don't do well to get a prize, and an increased chance as compared to the way it is now.

Again, I do think there should be different types of prize-giving events so that people who are good at different things have chances to do well at different events. Fan art contests and promote Sylestia contests are just two of the many things that could be included.

With the last trivia game, if you look at the points, it does look like two people were dominating the game. And that's not a fun feeling. But because of the way that it's structured, if you look at who got prizes it looks much less like that. It looks pretty darn awesome that so many people who didn't do well in the answering got prizes.

And I know, when you look at who this is coming from it might seem easy to dismiss. But just as I was the person who got second in points, I'm a person who got no prize and who understands the randomness in how the game is structured. I'm a person who knows how much it matters for forum games to keep certain appeals, that games you can do well in are more fun than something completely random for example, and that it's important to have lots of different types of games or events instead of having everything be speed-based.