G. is spot on here, but I want to offer some clarifications. The reason
this is done in such a roundabout way is that I wanted to encourage more
actual playing.
Option 2 exists because I wanted a way to republicize land. Option 1 exists
to get currencies in the hands of more people.
If something
The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners,
using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this
version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed
out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary".
I think a simple "pay N to a
Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely
get the point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT.
On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies
Oh wait, I see the part that you were talking about. I didn't notice the
bottom section. I apologize.
Re: options 1 and 2: I already stated that they're supposed to be expensive
in order to incentivize putting thought into your actions. The first one
makes that zombie unprofitable for the month
Nice, but I'd think my point about collusion was the most important...
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a nice
way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018,
Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a nice
way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> That wasn't really my most important point.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr
That wasn't really my most important point.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've now
gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next time.
Just shush.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018,
The intent of the first two were to be a last resort, in case you forget to
pay all the zombies' scare debt. They're supposed to be unbalanced.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 16:49 Corona wrote:
> Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't
>
Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've now
gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next time.
Just shush.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > I remember
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 15:39 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
> possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
> player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
> player set as eir master
Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't
possibly benefit the giving player, unlike the others, which can,
indirectly.
~Corona
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> I remember someone saying that scary public actions
I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
The zombie network of a player is an
13 matches
Mail list logo