Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote: On 5 June 2011 02:08, com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? We are the game's worst enemy. Rule 1: A battle plan never survives contact with the enemy. Rule 2: We're our own worst enemy. From this I deduce: never introduce a new idea bit-by-bit so it can be corrupted before it's in place; introduce it all at once so that it can fail spectacularly.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: On 06/04/2011 09:06 PM, ais523 wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote: What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets that interacted with each other nontrivially? Was it that the rules were relatively stable over a long enough time for players to usefully engage in long-term strategy? I don't know. On paper, it really shouldn't have been as successful as it was; it was a relatively simple mechanic that could be analysed mathematically quite easily, it was rather grindy, it wasn't all that interesting in its own right. Capturing what makes something like that take hold seems to be the core issue with BlogNomic, which lives for that sort of minigame. In Agora, it's not so much of an issue as something like that that's successful can drive play for months, but obivously you need something like that to start with. Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy condiments on a solid, grindy base. IMO, it was successful solely because enough people were involved with its beginning that they weren't apathetic in the first few rounds. I don't think the mechanism mattered one bit (other than it not being completely broken and unworkable). Isolation helped: many completely isolated contests (only tie to Agora = champion at end) are successful. Mafia, AAA, the Puzzle one, BF Golf Joust, Ace of Spades, etc. The ones that are difficult to get working are the ones that try to tie strongly to voting, proposing. (Mind you the Grand Poobah and the List of Succession weren't too bad). I don't think grindy is a virtue at all in these (AAA is the only one of the above contests I avoided and despised) but that's just me. Of course, all of the above were working against the background of a stable-ish economic system (Notes, and previously Stems). -G.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/05/2011 02:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote: On 5 June 2011 02:08,com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? We are the game's worst enemy. Rule 1: A battle plan never survives contact with the enemy. Rule 2: We're our own worst enemy. From this I deduce: never introduce a new idea bit-by-bit so it can be corrupted before it's in place; introduce it all at once so that it can fail spectacularly. Rule 1 doesn't mean you lose when you meet the enemy, it means you have to replan. I think a better conclusion would be to make things up as you go, rather than planning ahead.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Benjamin Caplan wrote: On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:10 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins? Not infinitely divisible; not sure about quantity of coins. Not yet sure how to handle players coming in and out - thoughts? Two thoughts occur to me: the size of the economy could simply not scale with the number of players; or coins could have 'backers' and only be worth something if the backer is a player. (Maybe the Speaker's coins could be worth double, or something.) Rule 1946/9 (Power=1) Distribution of Voting Entitlements (a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor's Budget. (b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by the Bank which either: (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have not yet concluded; or (2) have been auctioned in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or (3) have been Auctioned in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning Bids have been paid, but the Voting Entitlements have not been transferred to the Winning Bidders. (c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL, the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero. (d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive at the beginning of the month, the Assessor shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/04/2011 03:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Rule 1946/9 (Power=1) Distribution of Voting Entitlements That strikes me as the type of usually-close-enough approach that tends to work best in practice, but I still feel like we can do better than that. (On the other hand, I seem to remember that the People's Bank of Agora failed spectacularly, so perhaps a bit of fuzz is a good thing.)
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 4 June 2011 18:07, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: (On the other hand, I seem to remember that the People's Bank of Agora failed spectacularly, so perhaps a bit of fuzz is a good thing.) Only because the economy as a whole collapsed due to apathy. The PBA had bugs, mostly in its recordkeeper, but it was sound in the context of an active game.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 4 June 2011 18:07, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: (On the other hand, I seem to remember that the People's Bank of Agora failed spectacularly, so perhaps a bit of fuzz is a good thing.) Only because the economy as a whole collapsed due to apathy. The PBA had bugs, mostly in its recordkeeper, but it was sound in the context of an active game.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 5 June 2011 02:08, com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? We are the game's worst enemy.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? Apathy is a specific problem, and we should look for a specific solution. Replacing the rules with completely different ones might or might not be the best approach; novelty is certainly a plausible candidate. What do you suggest?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:51 -0500, Pavitra wrote: On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? Apathy is a specific problem, and we should look for a specific solution. Replacing the rules with completely different ones might or might not be the best approach; novelty is certainly a plausible candidate. What do you suggest? We really need an AAA replacement. I think that contest was effectively single-handedly driving the game for months, if not years; towards the end, it was economic suicide not to be involved in it. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/04/2011 08:55 PM, ais523 wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:51 -0500, Pavitra wrote: On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already? Apathy is a specific problem, and we should look for a specific solution. Replacing the rules with completely different ones might or might not be the best approach; novelty is certainly a plausible candidate. What do you suggest? We really need an AAA replacement. I think that contest was effectively single-handedly driving the game for months, if not years; towards the end, it was economic suicide not to be involved in it. What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets that interacted with each other nontrivially? Was it that the rules were relatively stable over a long enough time for players to usefully engage in long-term strategy?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote: What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets that interacted with each other nontrivially? Was it that the rules were relatively stable over a long enough time for players to usefully engage in long-term strategy? I don't know. On paper, it really shouldn't have been as successful as it was; it was a relatively simple mechanic that could be analysed mathematically quite easily, it was rather grindy, it wasn't all that interesting in its own right. Capturing what makes something like that take hold seems to be the core issue with BlogNomic, which lives for that sort of minigame. In Agora, it's not so much of an issue as something like that that's successful can drive play for months, but obivously you need something like that to start with. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/04/2011 09:06 PM, ais523 wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote: What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets that interacted with each other nontrivially? Was it that the rules were relatively stable over a long enough time for players to usefully engage in long-term strategy? I don't know. On paper, it really shouldn't have been as successful as it was; it was a relatively simple mechanic that could be analysed mathematically quite easily, it was rather grindy, it wasn't all that interesting in its own right. Capturing what makes something like that take hold seems to be the core issue with BlogNomic, which lives for that sort of minigame. In Agora, it's not so much of an issue as something like that that's successful can drive play for months, but obivously you need something like that to start with. Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy condiments on a solid, grindy base.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy condiments on a solid, grindy base. FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise. When comex wrote a perfect-play algorithm for Bayes in about forty lines of Python, well, that just sealed the deal. But it sure was successful. Maybe because it was an excuse to send Agora mail?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 11-06-04 07:19 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy condiments on a solid, grindy base. FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise. When comex wrote a perfect-play algorithm for Bayes in about forty lines of Python, well, that just sealed the deal. But it sure was successful. Maybe because it was an excuse to send Agora mail? I think it was because it was highly interactive. Every significant change to the gamestate mattered in AAA. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 11-06-04 07:19 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitracelestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy condiments on a solid, grindy base. FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise. When comex wrote a perfect-play algorithm for Bayes in about forty lines of Python, well, that just sealed the deal. But it sure was successful. Maybe because it was an excuse to send Agora mail? I think it was because it was highly interactive. Every significant change to the gamestate mattered in AAA, not just ones made by any given player.. -scshunt
DIS: Competitive payments
I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions, such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into some system of roughly equally distributing officer salaries. Thoughts? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 21:37 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions, such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into some system of roughly equally distributing officer salaries. Thoughts? -scshunt Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins? Not infinitely divisible; not sure about quantity of coins. Not yet sure how to handle players coming in and out - thoughts?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions, such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into some system of roughly equally distributing officer salaries. Thoughts? Vote Points?
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 4 June 2011 06:10, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Not infinitely divisible; not sure about quantity of coins. Not yet sure how to handle players coming in and out - thoughts? Aww; infinitely divisible sounds fun. Wrt players registering, you could just rob everyone else, and similarly redistribute everyone's assets on deregistration. (Perhaps the Lost and Found Dept. could come in handy?)
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Benjamin Caplan celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins? There are 21 million units, and they're divisible up to eight decimal places. The total quantity cannot increase; new players must get their currency from old players. When people deregister without giving their coins away, those coins cease to exist. Obviously. —Tanner L. Swett
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:10 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote: Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins? Not infinitely divisible; not sure about quantity of coins. Not yet sure how to handle players coming in and out - thoughts? Two thoughts occur to me: the size of the economy could simply not scale with the number of players; or coins could have 'backers' and only be worth something if the backer is a player. (Maybe the Speaker's coins could be worth double, or something.) The first option is probably mostly okay considering how little the playerbase size tends to change over time, but on the other hand there are few enough players that even two or three people joining or leaving could have a noticeable effect on the economy. On the gripping hand, it wouldn't be devastating, and there's likely to be much larger sources of noise than that in any economy tied to a nomic. The second option would probably be more work than it's worth for the recordkeepor.
Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On 06/03/11 22:26, Benjamin Caplan wrote: The second option would probably be more work than it's worth for the recordkeepor. And has an unfortunate effect if all of Wooble's coins are owned by others. -scshunt
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Competitive payments
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: As another take, the number of coins could be directly tied to the number of players; if a player leaves, all their coins are destroyed, and then N coins or the total amount of coins in everything's possession are destroyed so that the level is what it was before, and when a player joins, all the new coins go to them. I object.
