Comments on comments below, but in a nutshell: Stuff will get fixed next
draft.
On 10/27/2018 7:27 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:36 PM, ATMunn 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
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
> you think there's any hope for it then please say
On 10/27/2018 4:07 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
ATMunn wrote:
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
ATMunn wrote:
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
On 10/17/2018 6:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
[snip]
No, you’re really on the right track. You’ve brainstormed correctly.
Remember how I said “start with a very simple idea and then add just enough
so it's not actively boring”? You’ve done the very simple idea, which is
great. Now you need to
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This was not the best way to handle it, I will admit that. But you
> have to understand my reasoning. After PAoaM, I have a completely
> different outlook on subgames. If I ever propose more, let's hope I
> learn from it. But don't berate current me
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM ATMunn wrote:
> On 10/17/2018 5:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > My point is that,
> > in it's current state, I am not planning on playing space. Once the
> > core is supplemented with interesting mechanics to help make it more
> > fun to play, sure. But right now?
On 10/17/2018 5:06 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My point is that,
in it's current state, I am not planning on playing space. Once the
core is supplemented with interesting mechanics to help make it more
fun to play, sure. But right now? I just really don't think I'd enjoy
it.
Oh, I totally get
Listen, I also regret the way I handled land. Q*Bert was proposed
after two weeks of no land auctions because people with the assets to
make meaningful changes weren't doing so. I had no way to know that o
was going to go on a journey to explore the edges of the map and, in
the process, create
Hm, I like this. Maybe there is the base proposal, and also at least
prototypes of "expansion" proposals along with it. That way, we can see
what ideas are there, and propose and vote them in once we know the base
system works.
On 10/17/2018 10:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Wednesday,
On 10/16/2018 9:56 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
[snip]
Okay so overall, this is a decent idea, but I don't really want to play
this version of it. Why? It suffers from Boilerplate Syndrome. This is a
feature of proposed new minigames where the core mechanics are too
lightweight for their own
Ugh - look - I don't want to come across as annoyed, but these were
comments that were made and ignored about the early drafts of land -
all that mess like Q*Bert, land color, etc., really distracted from
the game when it wasn't basically working. All of these layers
really hampered Land from
Uninteresting core gameplay is as dangerous for a new minigame as
overcomplicated core gameplay. It's a balancing act.
Your point is a valid one, I'll give you that, but I believe mine is just
as valid.
ATMunn, make sure that if you decide to add more mechanics, make sure they
continue to direct
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:56 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> Okay so overall, this is a decent idea, but I don't really want to play
> this version of it. Why? It suffers from Boilerplate Syndrome. This is a
> feature of proposed new minigames where the core mechanics are too
> lightweight
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> The best way to combat Boilerplate Syndrome is to add interesting gameplay. I
> don't know where you want to go with this so I'm just going to throw some of
> my ideas here and leave you to be insprired.
I think you need to be very careful here - too
Okay, other than some wording issues, this is functional. However, I do
have some issues.
On 10/15/2018 7:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
Title: "spaaace?"
AI: 1
Author:
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
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,
>
so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
Title: "spaaace?"
AI: 1
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): Aris
Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with the following text:
{
Spaceships are indestructible fixed
20 matches
Mail list logo
