This looks like much more text-based than I thought and there is very little contact between players so far.
Some people use the game to promote their site / idea, I guess I do that too, I've put my survival engineering research in there.
Third day of the game the first criticism of 'unrealistic' forecasting has appeared. I view this as the first signs of real discussion.
most activity until day 4 is mainly targeting niche problems or very general philosophy, the organizational stuff looks very Western, with a lot of fabbing, hacking and gardening involved. The stories that are written are very personal, while the strategic things are written rather dry and impersonal.
The actual superstructing is quite ineffective, you set up your kind of structure for people to join. Then some join it, and then nothing happens any more. Within this superstructing-set-up there is not enough infrastructure for people to work together.
The discussions are not turning up many brilliant new insight yet. Day 8.
Contact between players is slowly picking up.
There is a kind of rather vulgar excitement in Superstruct, the kind that drives disaster-tourism. It's not a pretty sight. I wonder how many African former child-soldiers would be eager to play this game. As Busdriver says: Recreational Paranoia Is the Sport of Now. A superthreat, it worked for Bush and it works for Superstruct.
Looking at player profiles I estimate 60% of players is a small sustainable farmer in 2019.
I get the impression the game is massively dominated by American and European players of a certain age-group, with few specialists like physicians, farmers, etc. This probably makes the forecasting unreliable.
I've not played for two weeks, but little seems to have developed in the discussions. Somebody made a better website interface called Reconstruct but it has only 40 members.