Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, 20 May 2020, 13:47:34 GMT, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing: >> >> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. >> >> with: >> >> A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one Pendant. > > Maybe, just to appease the ossification gods in case something insane > happens, there should be another method of pending a proposal? Our standard is to make it possible but illegal for the Promotor to distribute a proposal that hasn't been pended properly. It's important to check the rules for proposal distribution (amending them if necessary) to ensure that that property is met. A simple alternative would be to allow the Promotor to unilaterally add one proposal to the pool per week (as an "officer perk" that can also be used to fix breakage). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, 14 May 2020, 14:48:20 GMT, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/14/2020 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/14/20 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> > >> On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>> On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: > Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran > crimes. > >>> > >>> This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, > >>> but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly > >>> fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. > >> > >> When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part > >> of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just > >> shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used > >> blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. > >> Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not > >> sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). > > > > Wow, we are really ripping past-Agora off here. > > Eh, not so much ripping off as a perennial discussion point - whether > blots are seen as genuine cheating/taboos to be avoided, versus being > acceptable penalties accumulated during game play, is a pendulum that's > gone back and forth a few times I think. Committing crimes is unacceptable. Accumulating Blots for reasons other than committing crimes is entirely acceptable. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:37:55 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Trying to get a sense of how the numbers would work out: > > As far as I can tell, cards are created as follows: > * When the game is enacted or someone wins it. (1 Card of each type per > player) * When a player gets a welcome package. (1 Card of each type) > * Each officer can create 1 card per month. Missing the auction for Victory Cards but otherwise correct. > If half the cards produced are legislative, that would be around 8 > Legislative Cards per month, which if optimally converted becomes 20 > Pendants. Is that enough? Ideally there'd be an appropriate way to generate Legislative Cards and Justice Cards that's unique and flavorful for them. I was initially going to leave that up to other people to propose after this. But maybe we should work those out now, so we don't need up out of pendants. Suggestions? > Also, I know there are some objections to limiting proposals > generally. I guess there aren't many other things to limit right now. > Maybe we could introduce other subgames that are fuelled by special > Products to fix that. E.g. I don't remember if G.'s Stones proto > involved auctioning off the stones, but if it did, we could make the > currency for the auction be Mana, which is associated with Magic Cards > or something. The controversy here has been when the limiting system disrupts the flow of proposals significantly. Take the boom-bust pattern created by the shiny system. There'd be weeks where even important proposals couldn't pass, and weeks where 20 proposals at once got pended and everyone suddenly had a lot more work than normal. That's a bad system. As long as there's enough pendants in circulation for them to be easily accessible, this actually adds a lot of interesting gameplay to making proposals. Players will be encouraged to obtain pendants as cheaply as possible and submit good proposals to profit off the reward (and possible ribbons/glitter) for passed proposals. Basically, limiting proposals is good if the limit is "what's the most efficient way to do this?" and bad if the limit is "can I even afford to do this?" > Other comments inline below. > > > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text: > > If a player has 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e can > > win > > by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards and > > their corresponding Products. Then, for each player create 1 card of > > each type in eir possession. > > > > [Exactly what it says on the tin.] > > Might be worth adding "at least" before "20 more Victory Points". Noted. > > > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Auctions" with the following text: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > > first > > lot for this auction is a Victory Card created in Agora's possession > > when the auction is initiated. The second lot is all of any single > > type > > of asset owned by the Lost and Found Department. The Treasuror is > > the > > Auctioneer for this auction and the minimum bid is 1 coin. > > > > [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually > > but I want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.] > > If the Lost and Found Department doesn't own anything, this might make > the Treasuror's duty impossible. > > If there are two lots, it might be better to order it at the > Treasuror's discretion, in case the second lot is clearly worth more > than the first. Noted. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
Trying to get a sense of how the numbers would work out: As far as I can tell, cards are created as follows: * When the game is enacted or someone wins it. (1 Card of each type per player) * When a player gets a welcome package. (1 Card of each type) * Each officer can create 1 card per month. If half the cards produced are legislative, that would be around 8 Legislative Cards per month, which if optimally converted becomes 20 Pendants. Is that enough? Also, I know there are some objections to limiting proposals generally. I guess there aren't many other things to limit right now. Maybe we could introduce other subgames that are fuelled by special Products to fix that. E.g. I don't remember if G.'s Stones proto involved auctioning off the stones, but if it did, we could make the currency for the auction be Mana, which is associated with Magic Cards or something. Other comments inline below. > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text: > > If a player has 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e can win > by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards and > their corresponding Products. Then, for each player create 1 card of > each type in eir possession. > > [Exactly what it says on the tin.] Might be worth adding "at least" before "20 more Victory Points". > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Auctions" with the following text: > > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The first > lot for this auction is a Victory Card created in Agora's possession > when the auction is initiated. The second lot is all of any single type > of asset owned by the Lost and Found Department. The Treasuror is the > Auctioneer for this auction and the minimum bid is 1 coin. > > [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually but I > want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.] If the Lost and Found Department doesn't own anything, this might make the Treasuror's duty impossible. If there are two lots, it might be better to order it at the Treasuror's discretion, in case the second lot is clearly worth more than the first. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:47:26 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type > > to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X > > > determines the value of Y in the following ways: > Pedantry: what if it's the empty set? Oops overlooked this. The rules don't define anything to happen for paying an empty set. So nothing happens. I don't see any reason to interpret it any other way. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:47:26 AM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I'm tired and I'm sure this has obvious mistakes but I believe in getting
> > things out there for review as soon as they're presentable, so here's the
> > Sets proposal. Please tear it apart. Trigon I listed you as a co-author
> > because the idea of tying in ministries was brilliant.
> >
> > {
> >
> > Title: Sets v0.9
> > Author: nch
> > Co-Authors: Trigon,
> > AI: 3
> >
> > Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
> > Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
>
> > also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products
are:
> These should probably be currencies, not just assets.
Really don't like how the rules define currencies right now semantically. Like
blots are a currency, which means the rules claim they're fungible. But they
can't be transferred, so they're not actually. and being a currency makes
something theoretically usable for auctions? So a rule could define a blot
based auction, which wouldn't work at all?
> >
> > Amend rule 2422 "Voting Strength" by adding:
> > A player CAN pay 1 Voting Proxy to increase eir voting strength on a
> > specified Agoran decision by 1. E may do so up to 3 times for a
> > single
> > decision.
> >
> > [This makes proxies pretty flexible actually, maybe too much? But I think
> > it's fun and can at most double your base power.]
>
> *sigh*
>
> I'm not sure that the current voting strength rules support
> instantaneous modifications of voting strengths.
>
> Rule 2242 says:
> > When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
> > an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
> > rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
> > precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
> > this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID.
>
> I believe there's consensus that this is evaluated continuously. This
> means that a Rule needs to modify the voting strength at every point
> that it might be evaluated, rather than just instantaneously increasing
> the voting strength. I think this just means that the Rule needs to say
> "A player's voting strength is increased by 1 point for every Voting
> Proxy..." instead of being phrased instantaneously.
>
Rats. Well that's an easy fix at least, thanks for catching it.
> > [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually
> > but I want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.]
> >
> > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following
> >
> > text:
> > Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice.
> > Legislative
> > Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards
> > are
> > associated with the ministry of Participation.
> >
> > Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, create a Card in
> > the
>
> > possession of another player under the following conditions:
> Maybe this should be "active player" in order to prevent zombie
> exploits?
It should be, noticed that shortly after I submitted.
Thanks for all the feedback!
--
nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:58:19 AM CDT Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:47 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing: > > > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. > > > > > > with: > > > A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one > > > Pendant. > > > > Maybe, just to appease the ossification gods in case something insane > > happens, there should be another method of pending a proposal? > > This is my largest concern. My solution at first would be that any > system we implement should allow the Promotor to pend things without > objection or in some other nearly unlimited way as a safeguard until > we have time to test the system. When I wrote this I thought the PM's Manifesto was an adequate safeguard but re-reading it it actually doesn't add things to the pool. So I agree here, probably something like 'the promotor CAN add a one proposal to the pool a week with 3 support.' -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:47 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing: > > > > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. > > > > with: > > > > A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one > > Pendant. > > > Maybe, just to appease the ossification gods in case something insane > happens, there should be another method of pending a proposal? > This is my largest concern. My solution at first would be that any system we implement should allow the Promotor to pend things without objection or in some other nearly unlimited way as a safeguard until we have time to test the system.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets v0.9
On 5/20/20 2:10 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> I'm tired and I'm sure this has obvious mistakes but I believe in getting
> things out there for review as soon as they're presentable, so here's the
> Sets
> proposal. Please tear it apart. Trigon I listed you as a co-author because
> the
> idea of tying in ministries was brilliant.
>
> {
>
> Title: Sets v0.9
> Author: nch
> Co-Authors: Trigon,
> AI: 3
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
>
> Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
> also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products are:
These should probably be currencies, not just assets.
>
> * Victory Cards and Victory Points.
>
> * Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
>
> * Legislative Cards and Pendants
>
> * Voting Cards and Voting Proxies
Name suggestion: extra votes. I also think Victory Points is fine as it is.
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type
> to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X
> determines the value of Y in the following ways:
Pedantry: what if it's the empty set?
> Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
>
> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool.
>
> with:
>
> A player CAN add a proposal to the Proposal Pool by paying one Pendant.
Maybe, just to appease the ossification gods in case something insane
happens, there should be another method of pending a proposal?
>
> [Make Pendants do the pending thing.]
>
> Amend rule 2422 "Voting Strength" by adding:
>
> A player CAN pay 1 Voting Proxy to increase eir voting strength on a
> specified Agoran decision by 1. E may do so up to 3 times for a single
> decision.
>
> [This makes proxies pretty flexible actually, maybe too much? But I think
> it's
> fun and can at most double your base power.]
>
*sigh*
I'm not sure that the current voting strength rules support
instantaneous modifications of voting strengths.
Rule 2242 says:
> When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
> an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
> rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
> precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
> this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID.
I believe there's consensus that this is evaluated continuously. This
means that a Rule needs to modify the voting strength at every point
that it might be evaluated, rather than just instantaneously increasing
the voting strength. I think this just means that the Rule needs to say
"A player's voting strength is increased by 1 point for every Voting
Proxy..." instead of being phrased instantaneously.
>
> [Would love some feedback here. I personally love this idea conceptually but
> I
> want it to be manageable for the Treasuror.]
>
> Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following
> text:
>
> Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice. Legislative
> Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards are
> associated with the ministry of Participation.
>
> Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, create a Card in the
> possession of another player under the following conditions:
Maybe this should be "active player" in order to prevent zombie
exploits ?
>
> * the Card is associated with a ministry that is an in the interest
> switch of at least one office the officer holds AND
>
> * the player receiving the Card does not hold an office with the Card's
> associated ministry in its interests.
>
> [I feel like the wording of this could be simplified? Also, should Speaker
> and
> Prime Minister be excluded from the restrictions on the receiving player? As
> it stands they basically can't receive cards this way at all.]
The wording seems fine to me. Not sure about PM/Speaker, though.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:57 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17:11 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any > > time other than when they want to declare victory? > > > > Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess > > the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players > > might want to actually use the corresponding assets. > > As written, not really. I briefly flirted with the idea of having another > asset > that let you steal cards, but I decided to focus on core mechanics for now and > maybe introduce that later. Another option is to make the wincon something > like "Have 20 *more* Victory Points than any other player" which might lead to > people cashing in their cards to prevent someone else from winning. That sounds both incredibly simple and likely to result in strategic play (e.g. conspiring with people to make it not appear as if you're approaching winning when you really are). I'm all for it! -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 3:17:11 PM CDT James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any > time other than when they want to declare victory? > > Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess > the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players > might want to actually use the corresponding assets. As written, not really. I briefly flirted with the idea of having another asset that let you steal cards, but I decided to focus on core mechanics for now and maybe introduce that later. Another option is to make the wincon something like "Have 20 *more* Victory Points than any other player" which might lead to people cashing in their cards to prevent someone else from winning. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 20:49, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > * Pending Tickets > * Extra Votes > * Blot-B-Gone > * Victory Points > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > Packages. > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, > destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each > card. > > -- > nch Is there any reason for a player to transmute victory points at any time other than when they want to declare victory? Not necessarily a problem, but want to make sure I understand. I guess the other Card types are less likely to be hoarded because players might want to actually use the corresponding assets. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/2020 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/14/20 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> >> On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. >>> >>> This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, >>> but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly >>> fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. >> >> When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part >> of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just >> shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used >> blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. >> Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not >> sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). > > Wow, we are really ripping past-Agora off here. > Eh, not so much ripping off as a perennial discussion point - whether blots are seen as genuine cheating/taboos to be avoided, versus being acceptable penalties accumulated during game play, is a pendulum that's gone back and forth a few times I think. -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:08:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > > * Pending Tickets > > * Extra Votes > > * Blot-B-Gone > > * Victory Points > > > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > > Packages. > > > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into > > the > > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > > happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every > > player 1 of each card. > > One more comment (sorry for the email spam). > > Could we possibly tie this economy into the current system of > ministries? There are already a few similarities. Pending Tickets seem > to represent the goals of the Ministry of Legislation, Extra Votes > possibly with Participation, Blot-B-Gone with Justice, and Victory > Points with... Economy, I guess? My point is that we could feasibly tie > these two systems together, making Agora even more connected. > > -- > Trigon Oooh, I totally forgot about interests. Instead of those office-specific clauses, what about "Each office may, once a week, give out one card corresponding to one of its interests to any non-zombie player that doesn't hold an office with that interest." I would exempt Victory Point Cards from this tho. I think having them be either bought via auction or earned via honour with little other interactivity prevents too much scheming and makes those events more exciting. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:54:23 AM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 3:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > > valuable to the set seeker. > > I think the scale needs to be even more different. For 1 card redeemed, > you get 1 asset per card. For 2 cards redeemed, you get 1.5. This is a > noticeable difference of 0.5 more assets per card. From here, we see > diminishing returns. 3 cards yield ~0.167 more assets per card, and 4 > cards yields ~0.083 more. Finally, 5 cards gives 0.15 extra assets per > card. It's absolutely the right call to make 5 cards worth 10 assets, > but I think we need to modify this scale such that the difference in > asset per card is constantly increasing. > > -- > Trigon I agree in spirit but I also think the difference can't be too extreme. If it's too extreme people are too incentivized to hoard cards, and we may end up with a few people with way too many of an asset and most people having none of it. Then again, this is a pretty easy thing to tweak as we go. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/20 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). Wow, we are really ripping past-Agora off here. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/14/2020 12:00 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch wrote: >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: >>> For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only >>> blot people like once a month anyway...? >>> >>> -Aris >> >> Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. > > This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, > but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly > fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. > When we had that old system, blots were a bit more transactional and part of gameplay. Every missed report was blotted, but some officers just shrugged and had a few blots all the time. At least one subgame used blots as gameplay penalties that were socially acceptable to accumulate. Though some crimes were clearly more "unacceptable" so it was mixed (not sure if that made it "harsher" just a different mindset). -G.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 2:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: * Pending Tickets * Extra Votes * Blot-B-Gone * Victory Points Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome Packages. Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each card. One more comment (sorry for the email spam). Could we possibly tie this economy into the current system of ministries? There are already a few similarities. Pending Tickets seem to represent the goals of the Ministry of Legislation, Extra Votes possibly with Participation, Blot-B-Gone with Justice, and Victory Points with... Economy, I guess? My point is that we could feasibly tie these two systems together, making Agora even more connected. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
I mean people commit crimes all the time, it's just that nobody points fingers. I, for example, have blatantly and recklessly broken a pledge of mine recently. On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:56 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: > >> For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only > >> blot people like once a month anyway...? > >> > >> -Aris > > > > Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran > crimes. > > This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, > but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly > fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only blot people like once a month anyway...? -Aris Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 3:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: A couple amendments to this proto idea: Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially valuable to the set seeker. I think the scale needs to be even more different. For 1 card redeemed, you get 1 asset per card. For 2 cards redeemed, you get 1.5. This is a noticeable difference of 0.5 more assets per card. From here, we see diminishing returns. 3 cards yield ~0.167 more assets per card, and 4 cards yields ~0.083 more. Finally, 5 cards gives 0.15 extra assets per card. It's absolutely the right call to make 5 cards worth 10 assets, but I think we need to modify this scale such that the difference in asset per card is constantly increasing. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: > For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only > blot people like once a month anyway...? > > -Aris Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran crimes. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:38 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM nch via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:20:21 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via >> agora-discussion >> wrote: >> > On 5/13/2020 3:52 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> > > Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There >> > > shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce >> > > incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different >> > > flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. >> > >> > What's a good initial target for cards distributed per month, do you >> > think? that would help figure out how many ways. >> >> I think it's gonna vary a lot for card type. We wouldn't want to flood >> any of >> the markets too much though. Especially Victory Points because that reset >> would be annoying if it was frequent and sudden. >> >> Without seeing play it's really hard to say how many assets each card >> will >> translate to on average. But if we assumed that people cash out at 3 >> cards, >> which is probably the sweet spot for ease of obtaining and value, then >> each >> card would add a little less than 2 of its own asset to the economy. >> >> If we adopted the amended ways then that'd be around 5 pends, 5 >> blot-b-gones, >> 5 extra votes, and (assuming the auction is monthly) ~3 victory points a >> week. >> >> That seems a little high for pends and blot-b-gones, probably fine for >> extra >> votes and victory points? > > > 5 pends a week on average sounds pretty reasonable? That's definitely high > for blot-b-gones though. > Actually, hmmm. On second thoughts a bit lower might make more sense. I'll have to think about it and maybe look at my archives for average rates over time. Sorry for waffling. For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only blot people like once a month anyway...? -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:20:21 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 5/13/2020 3:52 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There > > > shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce > > > incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different > > > flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. > > > > What's a good initial target for cards distributed per month, do you > > think? that would help figure out how many ways. > > I think it's gonna vary a lot for card type. We wouldn't want to flood any > of > the markets too much though. Especially Victory Points because that reset > would be annoying if it was frequent and sudden. > > Without seeing play it's really hard to say how many assets each card will > translate to on average. But if we assumed that people cash out at 3 > cards, > which is probably the sweet spot for ease of obtaining and value, then > each > card would add a little less than 2 of its own asset to the economy. > > If we adopted the amended ways then that'd be around 5 pends, 5 > blot-b-gones, > 5 extra votes, and (assuming the auction is monthly) ~3 victory points a > week. > > That seems a little high for pends and blot-b-gones, probably fine for > extra > votes and victory points? 5 pends a week on average sounds pretty reasonable? That's definitely high for blot-b-gones though. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:20:21 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/2020 3:52 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There > > shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce > > incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different > > flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. > > What's a good initial target for cards distributed per month, do you > think? that would help figure out how many ways. I think it's gonna vary a lot for card type. We wouldn't want to flood any of the markets too much though. Especially Victory Points because that reset would be annoying if it was frequent and sudden. Without seeing play it's really hard to say how many assets each card will translate to on average. But if we assumed that people cash out at 3 cards, which is probably the sweet spot for ease of obtaining and value, then each card would add a little less than 2 of its own asset to the economy. If we adopted the amended ways then that'd be around 5 pends, 5 blot-b-gones, 5 extra votes, and (assuming the auction is monthly) ~3 victory points a week. That seems a little high for pends and blot-b-gones, probably fine for extra votes and victory points? -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/2020 3:52 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There > shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce incentive > to > trade. But making different cards obtainable in different flavorful ways > would be > a lot of fun. What's a good initial target for cards distributed per month, do you think? that would help figure out how many ways.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:40:39 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > > valuable to the set seeker. > > > > Diversify the way they are put into circulation. Victory Points should > > still be auctioned, but for the others we could tie them to offices. > > Something like: > > > > The Promotor and the Assessor may each, once a week, create a Pending > > Ticket Card in the possession of any player other than the Promotor or > > Assessor. > > > > The Rulekeepor and the Speaker may each, once a week, create a Extra Vote > > Card in the possession of any player other than the Rulekeepor or > > Speaker. > > > > The CotC and the Referee may each, once a week, create a Blot-B-Gone Card > > in the possession of any player other than the CotC or Referee. > > There's an easy way to bypass this with zombies. An alternative view is > that would just make zombies all the more valuable and drive up their > prices at auction. > > -- > Jason Cobb As fun as that sounds, it'd probably be too powerful in practice. Getting a zombie would already give you access to all their assets so they'll still be more valuable in this system. But letting someone just give themselves cards is a bit much. It might need other restrictions too so it's not purely 'bribe the officeholder' (unless that sounds fun). Maybe a restriction against giving it to a player that earned a card that way last week. Also interested in suggestions for other ways to receive cards. There shouldn't be too many, because too many different ways will reduce incentive to trade. But making different cards obtainable in different flavorful ways would be a lot of fun. Here's another one for Victory Points that I think ties favorably into an existing system: Once a week, after that week's Honour Roll is published, the player with the most Honour may reward emself a Victory Point Card. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/2020 2:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:48:49 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. >> >> Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: >> * Pending Tickets >> * Extra Votes >> * Blot-B-Gone >> * Victory Points >> >> Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome >> Packages. >> >> Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. >> >> Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the >> corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. >> >> When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this >> happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every >> player 1 of each card. >> >> -- >> nch > > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > valuable to the set seeker. I think this is important (was just thinking about payout matrices and thinking I wouldn't put much value in getting card 5 if I already had 4). Overall like the idea.
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 5:36 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > A couple amendments to this proto idea: > > Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially > valuable to the set seeker. > > Diversify the way they are put into circulation. Victory Points should still > be auctioned, but for the others we could tie them to offices. Something like: > > The Promotor and the Assessor may each, once a week, create a Pending Ticket > Card in the possession of any player other than the Promotor or Assessor. > > The Rulekeepor and the Speaker may each, once a week, create a Extra Vote > Card > in the possession of any player other than the Rulekeepor or Speaker. > > The CotC and the Referee may each, once a week, create a Blot-B-Gone Card in > the possession of any player other than the CotC or Referee. There's an easy way to bypass this with zombies. An alternative view is that would just make zombies all the more valuable and drive up their prices at auction. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:48:49 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > * Pending Tickets > * Extra Votes > * Blot-B-Gone > * Victory Points > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > Packages. > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every > player 1 of each card. > > -- > nch A couple amendments to this proto idea: Where X = 5 Cards, the player gets 2X. This makes that 5th one especially valuable to the set seeker. Diversify the way they are put into circulation. Victory Points should still be auctioned, but for the others we could tie them to offices. Something like: The Promotor and the Assessor may each, once a week, create a Pending Ticket Card in the possession of any player other than the Promotor or Assessor. The Rulekeepor and the Speaker may each, once a week, create a Extra Vote Card in the possession of any player other than the Rulekeepor or Speaker. The CotC and the Referee may each, once a week, create a Blot-B-Gone Card in the possession of any player other than the CotC or Referee. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:05:54 PM CDT Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/13/20 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > I'm kind of confused by the difference between the "new assets" and the > > "cards" (which are themselves assets?) in this description? > > I think Nch means you can redeem Pending Ticket Cards to get 2X - 1 > Pending Tickets. > > -- > Trigon Yea, exactly that. Sorry for the ambiguity. Thus the title. Redeeming more cards at once gives you more of the asset. I also should have included an example: Trigon has 1 Blot-B-Gone Card and 1 Victory Point Card. I have 1 Blot-B-Gone Card and 1 Victory Point Card. If we both Transmuted now, we'd each have a Blot-B-Gone and a Victory Point. Instead, we decide to trade. Trigon gives me a Blot-B-Gone Card and I give Trigon a Victory Point Card. Trigon Trasnmutes eir 2 VPCs and gets 3 VPs. I transmute my 2 BBGCs and get 3 BBGCs. Assuming we both value both those assets equally, we both profited from the trade. -- nch
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/20 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 5/13/2020 1:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: * Pending Tickets * Extra Votes * Blot-B-Gone * Victory Points Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome Packages. Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this happens, destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of each card. I'm kind of confused by the difference between the "new assets" and the "cards" (which are themselves assets?) in this description? I think Nch means you can redeem Pending Ticket Cards to get 2X - 1 Pending Tickets. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
On 5/13/2020 1:48 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Extremely proto proposal based on the economic arguments I made elsewhere. > > Introduce 4 new assets and a corresponding Card for each asset: > * Pending Tickets > * Extra Votes > * Blot-B-Gone > * Victory Points > > Every player starts with 1 Card of each type, also include them in Welcome > Packages. > > Auction off 1 Card of each type at regular intervals. > > Any player may Transmute X Cards of the same type, where X is 1-5, into the > corresponding asset at a ratio of X Cards = X + (X-1) Assets. > > When a player has 20 Victory Points, e may declare Victory. When this > happens, > destroy all cards and assets (besides coins), then give every player 1 of > each > card. I'm kind of confused by the difference between the "new assets" and the "cards" (which are themselves assets?) in this description?
