I followed the first game with some interest.
However, two things did strike me about it. The first was that the rules, as interpreted, seemed to favour the agents, although that could also have been down to the fact that the agents had an outstanding team who were prepared to put in a lot of work in order to win.
And that was the second matter: This is a game which requires quite a considerable commitment, and I am writing as someone who tends to be pretty active when I am in the WW universe.
I'll watch this one with interest now that the rules have been tweaked somewhat; good luck to you all.
yes, you are correct on both accounts.
the rule issue is not a major one. being a new game it will take some trials to reach a balance, and the only way to resolve that is by test-playing. i think in the last game we (the agents) got a large advantage by exploiting a gray area in the "no confidence" card, which was used in a way that was legit giving the rules frame, but way too powerful.
there have been several changes in this version and although my impression is that we moved maybe too much in the opposite direction, the only way to find out is to play.
the requirement for a higher commitment -in time and participation- is an intrinsic aspect of this format, i think.
the pace is decidedly quicker than WW, so there is less dead time, and all players need to be a bit more involved (although because of the mechanism, some players will be somewhat excluded from a point in).
Also, because there are fewer players and the vote requires almost everyone to be actively participating, even a single player who is absent/coasting impacts the game a lot, and two basically kill it.
timezones are a bit more of an issue in one way (since the time is more compressed), but less in another, due to the lack of need to communicate via PMs