On 05/24/17 15:24, Nic Evans wrote: > > > > On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote: >> > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want >> and don't know how to deal with [...] >> I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the >> Shiny system if they don't want to. >> >> > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp >> when I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps? >> Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so >> someone angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources >> they can't control. > Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing > else. You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2 > Stamps at the minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell > the excess stamps to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming > prices fluxtuate up and down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly) > you're making unique stamps for free.
Clarification: By 'for free' I mean, without paying any extra. It's cheaper or as cheap to make shinies this way as it is to cooperate. A good economy is based on the value you create for others, not for yourself. >> If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player >> sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable) >> farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that >> player's stamps. > The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone > is 'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can > go down as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of > trying to make inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available. >> >> Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which >> increases the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had >> not been created recently, giving stamps a hold value as well. >> > That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare > Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important. >> 天火狐 >> >> On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T >> <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com <mailto:draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization >> needs to pay >> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets >> proposal states >> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to >> accept an >> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would >> rather a player >> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, >> and have a >> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be >> in (which is >> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all >> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance. >> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I >> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they >> don't >> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion. >> >> -Aris >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
