On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So I should just have the first two paragraphs plus the little "changes are > secured" thing?
Yep. In fact, you really shouldn't need even the changes are secured. They're restricted, and that's probably good enough.\ > After thinking it through, though, I think I'll call jafitah "patches" and > zmetah "facilities" > > You're using them inconsistently >> >> anyway. > > > No I'm actually not. Whenever I typed jafit, I meant jafit. Whenever I typed > zmet, I meant zmet. What I meant was that you still had "plot" in the proposal anyway, and were interchanging those. >>> Jafitah (pronounced /jæfitɑ/, singular "jafit") are liquid assets >>> tracked by the Cartographor. >>> >>> In order to create a plot, the player who wishes to create it >>> SHALL specify one or more Land Units that are all connected by a >>> single Type that the plot is to be composed of. These land units >>> are considered the jafit's constituents. >>> >>> A player CAN create or destroy a plot by announcement by spending >>> 3 AP or 5 sh. >>> >>> If one or more units of land that make up a jafit ever have their >>> ownership or Land Type changed, then: >>> >>> 1. If the change would cause the constituent Land Units to cease >>> to be connected, then the jafit is destroyed; >>> >>> 2. otherwise, the plot is resized to exclude the Land Unit in >>> question. >> >> >> I really don't like the semi-modular approach. Make it so that each >> one piece of land is separate, it will be simpler to deal with. I like >> complexity, but this is needless. > > > You really think so? The reason I did it this way is because I wanted people > to want to make larger jafitah so that the size could determine how much of > a profit they could turn. The alternative, which makes more sense to me, is that you have to build a farm on each piece of land individually. That way, instead of doing all the record keeping on patches, we do recordkeping on each piece of land as a single unit. It also means that you can transfer one piece of land, with its farm, or whatever. >> My suggestion would be to say that >> you can only build on land you're standing on, encouraging building >> things closer together so you can access them. We might eventually >> allow players to "level up" their building after some time (like I >> think G.'s proposal had), > > > Please no, that seems more complex. Why? A rank-1 farm produces 1x fruits, a rank-2 farm produces 2x fruits, and so forth. >> or provide synergy bonuses, or both, but >> those are all simpler than tracking this. Also, wouldn't you want to >> require the player to own all the land? > > Crap, did I not specify that the player had to own all the land? Because I > intended to. > >>> [ This needs to be worded better. Suggest fixes please. Thanks in >>> advance. ] >>> >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmetah" with the text: >>> >>> [ Okay, I'm just gonna call everything by Sajem Tan names because why >>> not. This one means "building" btw. ] >>> >>> Zmetah (pronounced /zmetɑ/, singular "zmet") are liquid assets >>> tracked by the Cartographor. In order for a zmet to exist, it MUST >>> be built on a jafit. Only one zmet is allowed per jafit. >>> >>> A player CAN create a zmet by announcement by paying specifying >>> which jafit e wants to build it on, specifying which type of zmet >>> e intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost. >>> >>> If a player owns a zmet, e CAN, by announcement, use any powers >>> the zmet affords to em. >>> >>> If a player owns any zmetah with upkeep costs, e SHALL pay them >>> before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do this >>> destroys the zmet. In the second to last week of the Agoran Month, >>> the Cartographor SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to all >>> those who have not paid upkeep fees on any of eir zmetah. >> >> >> You probably just want to destroy it, not punish the person. > > > Uh, they are destroyed if you don't pay the upkeep cost. And there's no > punishment, unless you call the humiliating public reminders, which do not > punish the player at all, a punishment. " e SHALL pay" specifies that e can be punished if e doesn't. I'd just drop it, but the problem persists in your latest draft. >> I think >> others have mentioned this, but SHALL/CAN problems pop up throughout >> the proposal. > > > Many times before (insert old Agoran language complaint here). They should > all be fixed before the next version. > >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmet Types" with the text: >>> >>> The following Zmet types are defined, along with all relevant >>> statistics: >>> >>> 1. Estate >>> - Build Cost: 10sh. >>> - Upkeep Cost: 10sh. >>> - Powers: The owner of an estate CAN choose to raise eir >>> voting power by one on up to X proposals, where X is the Nth >>> triangular number, where N is the amount of Land Units the >>> jafit which the estate is built on has. >>> >>> [ I hope that's clear so that someone can fix it lol. But seriously this >>> sucks. ] >>> >>> 2. Quarry >>> - Build Cost: 5sh. >>> - Upkeep Cost: 5sh. >>> - Powers: >>> >>> [ Depending on what economic reform proposal passes, Quarries will >>> either create shinies in the owner's possession, or it will do >>> something else related to shinies. >>> >>> Also, I need more ideas for this section. Overall though, I think >>> that this conveys the ideas I had in mind. Critique away! ] >> >> >> I like the Sente/Gote and Q*Bert systems from the thing you posted. Is >> there any reason we can't have several kinds of gameplay on the same >> map at the same time? > > > I like them too. I just thought it added a bit of needless complexity for a > very new system. If someone wants to re-add them after people have adjusted > themselves to the map's workings, I would love to include them. But for now, > I'm not sure if it's an entirely good idea. Fair. One of us can propose them after the system is a bit more settled then. -Aris
