Friday, May 27, 2011

Proposal: A Win Condition

Reaches sufficient AGAINST to fail without a vote changing; 3-8. -coppro

Adminned at 28 May 2011 13:21:46 UTC

If the Proposal titled “Something to fight for” failed, this Proposal does nothing.

Replace the subrule of “Farmland” titled “The House” with the following:

Each Farmer has an amount of defeats tracked in the GNDT.  This is initially set to 0, but farmers who join the game or de-idle after [time this proposal passed + 14 days] have their defeats set to 1 greater than the maximum number of defeats of all current players.

Every Plot contains a house. For the purposes of movement, a house is considered to be a square to the left of, and adjacent to all squares in the first column of its plot.

If a zombie moves into a house at any time and its Plot is owned by a farmer, that Plot is marked as destroyed on the Garden Patch, and is no longer owned by any farmer although it continues to be tracked. The former owner then receives a new Plot that is immediately below a random plot, and then DICEX, DICEY and DiceZ are rolled, where X, Y and Z are the farmer’s Sun, Wood and Juice respectively. Their resources are then set to the results of the respective dice rolls.  Their Defeats are then incremented by 1.

The zombie that moved into the house is then destroyed.

If one player has fewer defeats than all other players for a period of 24 hours, that player may declare victory.

If this proposal passes, the admin enacting this proposal must replace [time this proposal passed + 14 days] with the time this proposal passed + 14 days (on the ruleset, not in this post).

The 24 hour rule is in part because I worry some sort of rule relating to shambling might allow a user to declare victory while a shamble is in progress, immediately before their house is captured but after an enemy’s house is captured.
The extra defeat for newcomers is because I suspect there is some way to game this rule by de-idling with good timing (e.g., if some disaster was about to cause every player to be defeated simultaneously).

Comments

Ely:

05-27-2011 09:32:11 UTC

against How do we track zombies in Destroyed Plots?
I like the condition.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 10:07:27 UTC

Ely: How is tracking zombies in destroyed plots relevant to your voting decision? This proposal has no effect on whether or not the “marked as destroyed” text exists, as it is contingent upon a proposal which includes that text.

Ely:

05-27-2011 10:13:23 UTC

Since for me a potentially broken Proposal is fine to pass (Something to fight for), but a Victory Condition based on that broken mechanics makes me sceptic :)
Otherwise this would be a for.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 10:20:13 UTC

I still don’t understand where the question is for how to track zombies on destroyed plots.  Even without context, “Plot is marked as destroyed” just means adding the word “destroyed” to the plot entry somewhere, not deleting the plot itself.

Ely:

05-27-2011 10:49:24 UTC

Let’s say I get my plot destroyed.
We create a new Ely plot. Now, we have two squares called say “Ely(2|3)” and any Zombie located in one of my plots actually is in two different places. (there are two “Ely(2|3)”)

Josh:

05-27-2011 10:57:08 UTC

The naming of plots is ungoverned by the ruleset. There’s no reason why we can’t call the second plot Ely2, or SecondEly, or Fnord. Or just rename the original plot to Destroyed1.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 11:24:21 UTC

Ely: From “The Dead” : “It shall be written as Abc(C|R) where Abc is the name of the Farmer owning the Plot”

From “The House”: “no longer owned by any farmer although it continues to be tracked”


Notice that “The House” changes the owner of the plot and “The Dead” coordinates reference the owner of the plot.

Ely:

05-27-2011 11:31:16 UTC

[Josh]
It’s the name of the owner that makes the cohordinates.

[guy]
Right, but there’s still a problem: we can’t track Zombies in Destroyed Plots as soon as we have 1 (2?) of them.
Unowned(A|B)=Unowned(A|B)
or
-(A|B)

Josh:

05-27-2011 11:40:22 UTC

for Seems easy enough to fix and not worth voting the prop down for. And I like the mechanic.

aguydude:

05-27-2011 11:40:50 UTC

@Ely: Sure we can.  “Zombies are listed in the Garden Patch page next to the Plot where they are located. “

aguydude:

05-27-2011 11:48:35 UTC

I admit shambling will be more annoying, since you’d need to in GNDT say something like, “Moving Unowned(A|B) (Plot 10)”, but that’s not *broken*, just stupid.

Ely:

05-27-2011 12:48:18 UTC

Good point.
for CoV.
We need to fix anyway, but it’s not broken. Not very broken. :P

I still think having such an ambiguous Zombie tracking method may be a risk.

The mechanics is great, I’m just concerned by the “maximum + 1” mechanics. I see what brought you there, but the maximum value should do just fine. Maybe even the third maximum, If we feel nice.

qwertyu63:

05-27-2011 12:50:46 UTC

against That 24 hours should be longer.

Ely:

05-27-2011 12:52:41 UTC

Yeah, maybe 36 would be better.

SingularByte:

05-27-2011 13:31:28 UTC

This seems a bit too chance based for me. against

Ely:

05-27-2011 13:38:52 UTC

imperial Another CoV. Might change :P

Kevan:

05-27-2011 17:23:14 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-27-2011 20:03:16 UTC

against The win condition seems too easy to achieve, and I had more of a points system in mind.  For example, killing a zombie (not your own) is 5 points, destroying someone else’s crop with your zombie is 5 points, and destroying someone else’s house with your zombie is 25 points or something along those lines.

Yoda:

05-27-2011 20:04:56 UTC

But in order for that to happen, we would need a better way of controlling your own zombies.  Idea: having each person control their own zombies instead of one person controlling them all.

Ely:

05-27-2011 21:00:31 UTC

I surely prefer aguy’s.
Controlling zombies would make little sense thematically, and I’d prefer to see us united against the Zombies. But yes, maybe it’s too easy to achieve.

Yoda:

05-28-2011 01:41:08 UTC

Ely: I was just thinking that there would be some incentive for attracting zombies.  Another idea would be to have them randomly spawn 2-3 times per week or something.

Darknight:

05-28-2011 03:14:20 UTC

imperial

Kevan:

05-28-2011 07:19:47 UTC

[Yoda] Voting down an otherwise reasonable proposal because you had “more of a points system in mind” might be okay from an individual player, but it’s a big deal when it’s coming from an Emperor, where the DEF votes can kill the proposal.

If you have some rough game ideas in mind, to the extent where you will be voting down proposals that contradict them, you should tell us these ideas (even if it’s a brief, skeletal “A Zombie belongs to the Farmer who created it. When a Zombie destroys something, that Farmer gains 1 Victory Point.” proposal). It’d let you confirm that a quorum of players like your idea and want to play that game, and would let us craft proposals without worrying that they might just get rejected because they don’t match the Emperor’s secret plan for his dynasty.

Yoda:

05-28-2011 16:54:33 UTC

Kevan: I’m voting it down because the victory condition is too easy to achieve.  It becomes a game of last man standing, and new players are automatically disqualified because they start with more deaths than anyone else.  Also, I’ve been really busy as of late and haven’t had the chance to do much other than vote.  I’ve just been throwing ideas out for now because the current ideas haven’t been up up to par and that’s all I have time to do.

Galtori:

05-28-2011 17:49:58 UTC

imperial

scshunt:

05-28-2011 20:18:39 UTC

against

ais523:

05-28-2011 20:21:02 UTC

against for speed