Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Proposal: Ok, Victory Condition, please with a lime on top?

Timed out 5 votes to 6, failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Feb 2009 14:26:26 UTC

Create a new rule called “Ranking”

There exists an statistic that each Soldier other than the General has, called “Ranking”, which is not tracked in the GNDT. A Soldier’s Ranking is equal to their loyalty times their Experience.

At any time that the General’s Health is zero or less, the non-dead Soldier with the highest Ranking may achieve victory.

Lately the General has been seen spending too much time playing with his grenades. While this attitude is perfectly normal, and does not indicate any obvious mental health issue, High Command must take measures to ensure that our glorious military operation will continue as planed despite any eventuality that might occur. Refusing to acknowledge this important issue would lessen or capability to respond on the face of an Enemy offensive, and in our ability to properly dispatch hand grenades.

posted by arthexis at 24 Feb 2009 02:18:01 UTC Comments (22)

Comments

Rodlen:

02-24-2009 02:38:37 UTC

imperial

Qwazukee:

02-24-2009 04:31:18 UTC

I don’t see why we need a victory condition so badly, but I like this.

for  arrow

Amnistar:

02-24-2009 05:53:51 UTC

for for now, though pending good combat rules I have something else in mind.  You guys might want to start picking sides with your loyalty…

Qwazukee:

02-24-2009 06:20:39 UTC

I am on the DDA side.

Darknight:

02-24-2009 07:56:19 UTC

imperial meh

Kevan:

02-24-2009 10:57:02 UTC

imperial

Igthorn:

02-24-2009 12:21:17 UTC

imperial

ais523:

02-24-2009 17:14:05 UTC

against arrowThis proposal does not seem to allow for the possibility that the Enemy wins. We can defeat the Enemy without such artificial aids, and doing so would be a lot more impressive than a legally inevitable victory.

Klisz:

02-24-2009 18:00:13 UTC

against  Because this prevents people with negative loyalty from winning. Ranking should absolute value of loyalty (times XP of course).

Devenger:

02-24-2009 19:29:21 UTC

for Though it is awful to have to consider such a possibility, the Good Fight must continue to be fought beyond the death of our great and glorious leaders.

Wakukee:

02-24-2009 21:28:16 UTC

against I am intentionally trying to remain neutral. I do not like this. People should have choices.

Qwazukee:

02-24-2009 22:31:04 UTC

CoV against  arrow

Actually, absolute value makes more sensse.

Wakukee:

02-25-2009 03:54:21 UTC

NEUTRAL! Just XP, no loyalty, I say.

arthexis:

02-25-2009 04:33:48 UTC

If people want to win through negative loyalty, they should propose something to that end instead of voting down on this one.

arthexis:

02-25-2009 04:34:53 UTC

Furthermore, losing loyalty is so incredibly easy that it is not even funny. Why give victory to bad players?

Qwazukee:

02-25-2009 05:28:17 UTC

Voting this down has practically the same effect. Actually, according to you, it would be better to vote this down than to pass a corresponding negative loyalty law.

And besides, having a low loyalty does not make one a bad player. It makes one an inquisitive player, willing to consider all sides of this engagement. After all, we don’t even know for sure that the enemy exists.

Rodlen:

02-25-2009 05:46:36 UTC

against COV

arthexis:

02-25-2009 18:56:50 UTC

Having low loyalty does not make one a bad player. It’s just that it is mostly the bad players who currently have low loyalty… (except for Darknight, he is cool)

Wakukee:

02-25-2009 21:54:39 UTC

5-5.

Darknight:

02-26-2009 00:19:27 UTC

LOL thanks for that art.

Qwazukee:

02-26-2009 04:18:53 UTC

An Admin should please fail this.

Kevan:

02-26-2009 14:26:06 UTC

I make it 6-5 with Arthexis’s vote, but think I’ll CoV to make it 5-6:-

against