BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I don’t like the “half their production”—I think it encourages getting your production up earlier in the week

Also if I were Josh I’d make wild claims about Josh and Supernova working together right now

Makes a change from Brendan

@Clucky Bold claims considering I’ve never worked with anyone before.

That being said, I just like this way of handling it

like I said, I don’t like the “half their production”. feel like this encourages very spammy gameplay where you try to get as many actions in as possible in order to get more and more options

Well… yeah? That’s how we’ve been playing this whole dynasty?

Yeah, that does sound like being against playing the game

trying to avoid needing to perform multiple daily tasks is not “being against playing the game”

this moves up the grind even more: instead of just doing one action a day you now gotta do several.

It’s fine, Clucky, we can just move into the territory where we vote against each others’ proposals automatically, no need to figleaf it

As per Clucky

Fair enough; if Ty shares the concern then I suppose I should take it somewhat seriously, or at least accept that maybe the thinking here wasn’t obvious.

If the critique is that this incentivises early action in the week, then why is that bad? You can take, at most, 8 actions in a week in total, including moves, and front-loading them reduces your opportunity space to make adjustments later in the week. If you chew through five moves on Monday then you are less able to, say, take advantage of higher budgets later in the week (and the trend seems to only be up) or respond if you spot a rival cabal making a request / manufacture / sale combo. Isn’t that an interesting tension?

The game is always going to favour players who do more stuff. There is currently a cap on the amount of stuff that can be done, and that cap allows for more than one but less than two actions per day. It’s not unlikely that most players will hit that cap most weeks. Isn’t it much less interesting that we reduce the game to its inherent late mover advantage, and better than we introduce some way of spreading the incentives throughout the week?

Also, hang on, you’re both misreading it anyway - the proposal says Production, not Productivity - when actions fall in the week is irrelevant for Production!

Oh yeah! Production is set from the week before; it can’t change but once a week, so it will only push for more action overall, not at a specific time. My vote stands, though I was actually considering changing it.

Yes, I saw that it was Production, but Clucky’s not wrong, if he meant that getting your *Productivity* up early in the week would be smart if you want to remain flexible.

I guess you’re right that there’s a hard cap at 8, for those who are willing to vest whenever. But the game doesn’t seem to me to be having late mover advantage issues, what with all the vesting going on.

eh, if its Production it does kinda mean that it doesn’t matter when you do your actions. but everyone is still gonna be shooting to end the week at 8 productivity. which basically just means everyone gets 4 extra options as long as they are active. but if everyone is getting the same benefit… why have it in the first place?

This way you get less options from your teammates doing things - it promotes playing the game yourself rather than passively collecting from other people’s efforts.

I’m pretty happy with the passive collection tactic, and I’m also happy with other forms of team play. For example, I waited to be on a team to take my action, so that I could boost the Options of my soon-to-be-teammates with it. But my sluggish, option-obese self is maybe going to struggle to keep pace if we’re all shooting for 8 actions a day. Let me rest…!

*8 actions a week

> This way you get less options from your teammates doing things

This isn’t true. As long as you get your 8 production lined up, you’ll get 4 per action your teamate takes, plus half of what you were making before. In total that is gonna be more than you made before.

She meant fewer relative options, Clucky.

That I did.