DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On 6/28/24 03:10, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Ammo Store
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
>
> {
> Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fee of 13 spendies.
> }
Why isn't this just appending it to the existing rule? I'd prefer not to
have to create a category for Bangs if I can avoid.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
how about a dodging mechanic? give everyone a speed value, or perhaps they can buy bulletproof vests? On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 at 19:33, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow > > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and > > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation > > which can lead to very fast wins. > > > > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two > > shots to kill someone? > > > > Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was > able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice > as many resources to do that. > > I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing > nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the > next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair > for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those > issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better. > > -- > snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw
On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 11:20 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > I believe that deals and alliances are going to be extremely strong here. > To me, it seems to be in practice a prerequisite to incarnating at all in > the first place. There is no downside (other than the rather problematic tracking burden, which is a SHOULD) to incarnating if you don't intend to win via Bangs yourself – it helps to block a win, and may produce Bangs which could potentially have value as trade items. If enough players incarnate, it'll make a win via pooling quite hard to achieve, because (under the current rules) the pool has to form at least half of the players who incarnate (and would have to be an even greater proportion if the cost to eliminate someone were increased). There's also an interesting sort of relationship in which the more players incarnate, the more valuable Bangs become (due to reduced supply: some players would be willing to sell Bangs very cheaply, but others will demand more, and with lots of players incarnated then deals will have to be made with the more demanding players). That means that even if a player would be willing to sell their Bangs cheaply, if lots of players are incarnated, it makes more economic sense to increase your price because you're still likely going to be within the top X players to buy from. And that in turn means that the price of buying a win is going to go up faster than linearly as more players incarnate. All this means that players should be encouraged to incarnate rather than discouraged: staying Ghostly only benefits players who are trying to pool for a win. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:04 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow > down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and > myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation > which can lead to very fast wins. > > Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two > shots to kill someone? > Part of the reason it went so fast is that a small number of players was able to eliminate enough players immediately, and this makes it take twice as many resources to do that. I was also thinking about changing the game to eliminate all the timing nonsense, and letting players commit to eliminations and reveal them the next week. This would reduce rapid-fire combos and make things more fair for people who aren't as active. 72 hours would still have some of those issues, but if everyone eliminates at once it should be better. -- snail
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Victory by Quickdraw
I believe that deals and alliances are going to be extremely strong here. To me, it seems to be in practice a prerequisite to incarnating at all in the first place. On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 4:45 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 21:34 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business > wrote: > > I stand Alone. > > Now I'm trying to figure out how you could afford to bribe so many > people (particularly along the lines of "are these bribes large, in > which case you might not be able to pay for them, or small, in which > case how did you persuade people to accept them?"). I think it's > possible that there is some sort of win-trading going on (i.e. you > bribed the players by planning to support future wins). > > In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio > is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly > players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because > the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to > them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players > start hoarding.) > > -- > ais523 >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] It takes two, and Ammo Store
I don't think that requiring 2 Bangs to kill someone will necessarily slow
down the game once the match starts. We've seen that players (others and
myself) can easily use Contracts to prepare beforehand to set up automation
which can lead to very fast wins.
Perhaps a player could only shoot once per X hours (72?), and it takes two
shots to kill someone?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 9:12 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 9:45 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > In any case, this has demonstrated that a 1 Bang = 1 elimination ratio
> > is probably not enough to handle high levels of trading – possibly
> > players should start with half a Bang rather than a whole one. (Because
> > the way you eliminate a player is, in effect, to transfer a Bang to
> > them, there will always be enough to finish the game unless players
> > start hoarding.)
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: It takes two
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors: ais523
>
> [Adjusts the number of bangs needed to eliminate a player to two. This
> should encourage trading and slow down rounds.]
>
> Amend the rule with title "Bang!" by replacing "by paying a fee of 1 bang."
> with "by paying a fee of 2 bangs."
>
>
> }}}
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {{{
> Title: Ammo Store
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: snail
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Ammo Store" and the following text:
>
> {
> Each player CAN grant emself 1 bang by paying a fee of 13 spendies.
> }
>
>
> }}}
>
>
> --
> snail
> (Alive, 0 Bangs)
> (steampunk hat: creating new game mechanics)
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Hold it!
On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:13 PM Matt Smyth via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I incarnate. > -- > juniper > This fails. To "incarnate" is to flip one's Vitality to Invulnerable. A ghostly player CAN incarnate by announcement, provided there are only Invulnerable or Ghostly players. As I was alive at the time, there are not only Invulnerable or Ghostly players, so you can't incarnate. -- snail (Alive, 0 Bangs)
