Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Proposal: Adjusting Defeats

Fails at 1-7. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 23 Jun 2011 01:18:19 UTC

In the rule “The House”, replace

The former owner of the removed Plot 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.

with

The former owner of the removed Plot then receives a new Plot that is immediately below a random plot.  The former owner’s Sun, Wood and Juice are then set to 75% of their previous values, rounding down.  Any Zombies owned by the former owner of the removed plot are destroyed, unless the owner is the Landlord.  Zombies destroyed in this manner are not considered to be destroyed for the purposes of the rule “Zombejuice.”

If any player’s cellar contains an Unfueled Jeep, that player loses the Unfueled Jeep and gains 100 wood.

If any player’s cellar contains an Fueled Jeep, that player loses the Fueled Jeep and gains 100 wood and 25 Juice.

From “A Bit of Renovating”, remove the subrules, “Unfueled Jeep” and “Fueled Jeep.”

 

Being defeated already means losing all your crops and having a Defeated value of 1.  This gives Defeated players a more realistic chance of recovering, and removes the arbitrariness of using DICE.  It also removes some possible sketchiness around deliberately losing your House right before destroying someone else’s house, and adds the ability to strategically attack Farmers to protect your Plot.  This and the extra maintenance effort involved is why I didn’t solve the Sketchiness problem by giving the Zombies to Yoda.

Comments

Yoda:

22-06-2011 02:18:17 UTC

against meh

Also, what sketchiness are you referring to?  Each zombie technically moves individually (one move is completed before another begins).

aguydude:

22-06-2011 02:37:20 UTC

@Yoda: Sketchiness would be deliberately letting your house be taken over right before using your zombies to take over someone else’s house.  This is less likely in the current ruleset because doing so costs a lot of resources.

Galtori:

22-06-2011 02:47:17 UTC

imperial Uhhh. . . . .*shrugs*

Yoda:

22-06-2011 02:51:01 UTC

aguydude: If someone really wants to plan out something like that, I would say go for it.

aguydude:

22-06-2011 03:36:29 UTC

Yoda: You might be right.  The main goal was more to reduce the cost of defeats.

Yoda:

22-06-2011 04:21:43 UTC

We already have a proactive way of reducing the cost of defeat.

Bucky:

22-06-2011 05:36:28 UTC

against

SingularByte: he/him

22-06-2011 07:13:56 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

22-06-2011 07:28:53 UTC

imperial

mideg:

22-06-2011 08:35:00 UTC

against I like making the loss of your plot more deterministic. I would like to change the Jeep as a last line against being defeated, though. I will propose a change doing that, now. :-)

Winner:

22-06-2011 12:33:11 UTC

imperial