On one hand, I respectfully disagree that limiting the number of organizations that a player can join "reduces the strategic moves available". It just means that each player needs to think more strategically about how to allocate their resources (which organizations they join), which in turn makes each organization need to compete for players (since organizations would die by not having players).
On the other hand, people aren't required to join organizations, and thus is hard enough to get people to join without giving them a good reason to, and having people be limited in doing so doesn't help. As stated, I agree that the process outlined would result in a victory. However, I do honestly think it is valuable that we can have organizations not partake in the Shiny economy, if nothing else other than being able to have a subsystem which doesn't directly influence the Shiny economy, and if an organization is barred from owning a Shiny, they can't pay the administrative cost, effectively banning such organizations. Would a proposal that says to the effect of each organization that a player has created and still exists makes that player's next new organization more expensive? (Eg. A player's first organization costs 5 Shinies, 2nd organization costs 10, 3rd 20, etc.) 天火狐 On 24 May 2017 at 16:26, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T <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 >> > > > >
