> On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:36 PM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback! Comments on comments below.
>
> On 10/16/2018 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Some hopefully-helpful comments...
>>> Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
>>> is restricted to players.
>>> If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
>>> least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
>>> its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
>>> announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
>>> after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
>> So ... there's no particular reason for Spaceships to be assets (there's
>> basically one permanently per player). And these two bits together don't
>> work, because when you destroy an asset (as defined elsewhere), it
>> ceases to exist, as do all its switches. Redefining "destroy" for a
>> particular asset as being a Switch, when there's already a higher-powered
>> definition of what "destroying" an asset, is quite messy!
>> I'd suggest saying "each player has a set of Switches, collectively known
>> as Spaceship switches" and avoid the "spaceship=asset" all together?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I think it ended up this way because of how I was
> originally thinking it would work, but as I went along I added more switches
> (I originally just had Sector) and never considered that issue.
Actually, spaceship trading sounds kind of fun—can we have multiple spaceships,
but only one active one? Maybe I’m overcomplicating though
>
>> > (actually, better make it "each active player", this game is trivial if
>> you're allowed to fight against your zombie).
> oh yeah, zombies.
>>> Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
>>> players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
>>> spend,
>> So this game is basically an "whomever posts last before the deadline
>> has the advantage" game. I generally think games that come down to that
>> sort of race condition don't work particularly well. This is a really
>> good place for a Hash/secret move: each player submits a single, hashed
>> power they want to use, then reveal it after it can't be changed.
>
> I had considered that, but decided against it because I wasn't exactly sure
> how to do it. The main problem I considered is that especially sneaky players
> could memorize or have a list of the hashes that correspond to certain
> numbers. I could just say something like "players are ENCOURAGED to add extra
> elements to the message before hashing," as a sort of salt.
>
>> Another possibility is to make this a "finite hand set" game (there's
>> probably a better term for this mechanic). By that I mean, the sort
>> of game where you start with a set of Cards (e.g. 1-10) and have to
>> decide which card to play, so you aren't left later on with only low
>> numbers.
>
> I like that idea, and I think it's a good one, but I'm not totally sure how
> to do that with rules. I think I'll try the hash thing and come back to this
> later if it doesn't work.
>
>> Also, "power" is used elsewhere in the rules so it would be better to
>> find a different term.
>
> oops.
>
>>> either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
>>> at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion.
>> This sort of joint-responsibility for doing something is kind of hard
>> to enforce? Maybe make the challenger responsible for resolving.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
>>> {
>>> Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
>>> integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
>>> and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
>>>
>>> If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
>>> player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
>>> Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
>>> of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
>>> }
>> I like the concept of fame for dogfights, but please tie to an end goal
>> of actually Winning the Game! For that, I might do something like "wins
>> the game when Fame has been 10 continuously for a week, with Notice".
>> This means, when someone has enough Fame to win, others get warned and
>> have a chance to challenge the leader.
>
> Yeah, I wasn't sure what rewards I wanted, so I just didn't include anything.
> The only potential problem is that I wanted fame and infamy to both be
> rewarding, not just fame. However, that was back before I simplified
> everything a lot, so maybe just being 10 or -10 could work as the win
> condition.
