Monday, June 20, 2011

Proposal: Anti-grinding mechanism

Times out and passes at 6-1. EVC clause not triggered. -Purplebeard

Adminned at 23 Jun 2011 00:35:12 UTC

Remove the text “A seed may also have a Pheromone, which takes effect if a zombie destroys the crop.” from the rule “Planting” and add the following paragraph to the end of that rule:

A seed may also have a Pheromone, which takes effect if a zombie attacks but does not destroy the crop.  For the purposes of the Pheromones of Crops, the Zombie which attacked the crop is called the Attacker.

Replace the text “Effect: any Zombie that attacks this Crop is teleported to a random Square in the last column of a random Plot, after which this Crop is destroyed.” of the Catatulip Seed with “Pheromone: The Attacker is teleported to a random Square in the last column of a random Plot, after which this Crop is destroyed.”

Replace the text “Effect: When this Crop is Attacked by a Zombie and is not destroyed, the Zombie moves one space either upwards or downwards (randomly chosen) then continues Shambling as though the Zombie never Attacked this Crop.” of the Onion Seed with “Pheromone: The Attacker moves one space either upwards or downwards (randomly chosen) then continues Shambling as though the Zombie never Attacked this Crop.”

If at least half of the EVCs for this proposal contain the text “They’re overpowered.”, remove the pheromones of the Cabbage, Potato, and Watermelon.

Comments

mideg:

20-06-2011 19:48:03 UTC

against Unsure (and since the Landlord is the author if this Proposal, I won’t vote deferal for now).

Of course one could choose to leave it out, but shouldn’t you include a sentence that all existing Crop get the new properties? If I remember (and understand) the rules correctly, while planting a Seed, it becomes a Crop with the properties of the chosen Seed, thus a copy of the Seed. If u change the seed after copying it, existing Crops are not automatically updated, I think.

Also, I always like to know _why_ someone wants to change something. Why do you want to change the existing On_Death_Effect to a kind of Counterattacklike thing?

Ely:

20-06-2011 20:09:23 UTC

That was what the counterback effect was meant to be.
and, I think there was something about updating the Crops in the Ruleset. No time to check.
FOR

Yoda:

20-06-2011 23:00:15 UTC

Ely is correct on both counts.  The counterback effect was originally meant as a response to an attack, and it makes more sense that way I think.  The changes to the crops is just to make them more in line with the new wording of the pheromone.

This is the line in the ruleset that Ely was referring to: “When the attributes of the Seed from which the Crop originated are changed by any legal means (including the effects of proposals), the attributes of the Crop are changed to match the new attributes of the Seed. “

Purplebeard:

21-06-2011 07:50:25 UTC

against on principle. I’ve recently decided that I dislike all EVC clauses.

Also, I don’t see how this would prevent grind.

mideg:

21-06-2011 07:54:40 UTC

CoV for OK, here’s my vote. :-)

Yoda:

21-06-2011 15:09:27 UTC

PB: It says “at least half”.  Also, it prevents grind because it allows for some automatic defenses.  The reason I included the EVC clause is in case people thought that the current pheromones were too powerful given the new definition.

One example that I wanted to include in this proposal was to change the potato pheromone to “Reduce Attacker’s health by 10 and destroy the Potato.”

Winner:

21-06-2011 16:28:41 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

21-06-2011 16:38:45 UTC

for

aguydude:

22-06-2011 00:47:14 UTC

Watermelon is incredibly expensive, considering that it’s expected damage is only 0.5 points higher than that of Cabbage.  Cabbage is incredibly cheap and probably does not deserve a Pheremone.  Potato seems fine to me, even with this change.

I’m still not sure if I like this proposal.

Yoda:

22-06-2011 02:30:42 UTC

I would propose another crop rebalancing, but I’m out of slots.  If you would like to take a crack at it, go ahead.

Galtori:

22-06-2011 02:43:32 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

22-06-2011 07:24:42 UTC

Yoda: I didn’t say I had a problem with the way the EVC clause was worded, or that I questioned your reason for including it, I just dislike the inclusion of new voting mechanisms in proposals. If people think certain crops are overpowered, they’ll propose a separate fix.

Yoda:

22-06-2011 14:57:46 UTC

Except that I was worried that this would get shot down because it made the current crops overpowered, so I included the option to get rid of the overpowered part as a temporary fix.

scshunt:

22-06-2011 17:35:29 UTC

for They’re overpowered

scshunt:

22-06-2011 17:35:46 UTC

for They’re overpowered. The period is important.

mideg:

22-06-2011 20:20:00 UTC

CoV, since Yoda explained his reasons and my other objection turned out to be no matter, so:  for