This is a much closer match to visible player achievement.

This bores me somewhat, but I understand the necessity for a real wincon soon.

This seems massively selfish and unfair and if it passes would really spoil the dynasty for me

I’ve amassed 6 more coins than Josh this dynasty, if you refund all souveiners.

Josh, on the other hand, has amassed eight more coins than tech and tyguy

But apparently, he and I should have equal odds of winning (so that +6 lead is meaningless) whereas Tech’s odds are over half as bad and Tyguy, despite having the *same number of coins as Tech* (and maybe more as he’ll still get one more move once eveyrone else goes) somehow has odds that are *one fifth* that of Josh

I was happy to sacrifice my odds of winning to help ensure we got a new face running a dynasty because variety is the spice of life. But this approach seems completely ridiculous to me.

also incase anyone suggests that I am against this proposal because it lowers my odds of winning the dynasty, that is not true

Under my proposal, if no one else currently gains any more souveniers or coins, I would have a 21.8% chance of winning. I would somehow have to collect 6 more Route Score points, and no one else collect anything else, in order to bump my odds of winning up to 25%.

So objectively, this proposal increases my odds of winning. I’m just against it both because it keeps power in the hands of people who have already run recently—which is boring, and because it ignores any lead I had over Josh (which seems unfair) while exaggerating the lead Josh had over people like Tech and Tyguy

[Clucky] Looking at “coin value gained since the start of the game” seems more meaningful than coins held. Ignoring the 1 Coin we all gained from Obol and cashing Souveniers back in, Josh has currently gained 12 Coins since we started playing, to TyGuy’s 4. Josh would also have a few more moves in hand if we were to play the dynasty out.

Are you saying your End of the Road proposal is fairer for scaling TyGuy’s odds to be above those of Josh?

Operating under my “give Tyguy a boost because its been 2 years since they last ran a dynasty” assumption yes, i think if Josh got 12 coins and tyguy got 4 coins, its fairer to give Tyguy slightly better odds of winning than Josh than it is to give Josh 5x the odds of winning as Tyguy; as even if you just did a straight chop based on number of coins earned Josh only gets 3x odds over Tyguy.

I personally don’t see “resources gathered” as an especially privileged metric along which to assess performance in the dynasty. We have the concept of Fool’s Gold for a reason, and it’s notable that no proposal has given Ty any credit for his additional Will, despite Will being exactly as associated with Victory in the ruleset as money and Souveniers, i.e. not at all.

This proposal is intended to sidestep granular wrangling about the who-did-whats in wiki edits from a month ago. It’s a gut-check assessment of who has been playing, how hard, and to what overall outcome. Yes, it’s partial, and I’m open to TyGuy or Trap or Raven or Tech jumping up and saying that, actually, behind the scenes they were deeply engaged and feverishly busy, but from where I was sitting it looked like Clucky, Kevan and I were playing roughly as hard, to uneven effect but still each getting close enough to a game-winning scam that the dynastic ruleset got unravelled in the doing. That seems worth an even chop to me; a few coins here or there seems not worth sweating over.

What I do object to is the idea that players who participated less deserve a equal share; that seems unjustifiable and more than a little patronising. Trap and Ty have both won dynasties on their own merits (one unanswered question of Clucky’s proposal: why is Ty deserving of an odds boost when Trap isn’t, despite Trap having won fewer dynasties than Ty?). I’m comfortable that both will again. If Clucky has an urge to hand them a win then that’s his business; he can win and then pass the mantle, ruleset permitting. But instead he presents this contrived chop that hands ~50% of the outcome to people who weren’t even really playing all that hard? What are we even doing here? Why not divorce being Emperor from winning altogether if we’re going to hand out wins on the basis of Clucky’s gut feel about who deserves it more?

And if we are doing that, when why is Clucky kicking off about his six petty coins?

I’m not attached to this proposal, but I’ll not have “this approach seems completely ridiculous to me” from the guy who seems hell-bent on literally handing TyGuy a win by any means necessary, for no clear reason at all. No offence, Ty! Happy to work with you on a win any time you like, but from my perspective, this ain’t it.

> one unanswered question of Clucky’s proposal: why is Ty deserving of an odds boost when Trap isn’t, despite Trap having won fewer dynasties than Ty?

I gave an answer to this question on discord you must have missed it:

Tyguy last ran a dynasty two years ago. Spyder ran a dynasty two months ago. That is a big difference

I also find it a bit ironic that you’re somehow both accusing me of being “hell-bent on literally handing TyGuy a win by any means necessary” but also slighting Tyguy with your “We have the concept of Fool’s Gold for a reason, and it’s notable that no proposal has given Ty any credit for his additional Will, despite Will being exactly as associated with Victory in the ruleset as money and Souveniers, i.e. not at all.”

I would say that you’re the one slighting TyGuy there, Clucky. Why isn’t Will a metric in your mathematically obtuse chop, when it is as valuable to victory as coins are? And why are Souveniers worth 4 points when they only cost 2 to generate?

You can’t seem to decide whether you’re annoyed about this proposal giving you and me an even chance, or it not giving Ty an artificially inflated one. I’m honestly still sort of of the mindset that your weird-ass chop has a scam in it; hard to see the through-line of your argument without there being something underpinning it.

Resources gathered is a fair enough metric for how much effort players have put into playing the game well - sure, coins have no ultimate meaning, but we’ve all been playing as if it’s better to collect them than not. And that’s one way to split the win, and this proposal’s numbers aren’t too far from that.

Levelling off the three leaders seems fine as a simulation of how the dynasty might have actually played out, given that we were all trying similar scams and whichever two fell behind would likely have teamed up against the leader - up to an including the DoV, where the non-declarers would be trying to find angles against it.

I don’t agree with Clucky that TyGuy should be ranked above Josh and myself. If we’d had an earlier dynastic rule of “players who didn’t win a dynasty last year get to double all Coin income” then it’d be fair to include it in the final calculation here - but we’d also all have played (and allied ourselves) differently if we’d known that that would be the case.

@Josh

If you wanna argue I’m slighting Tyguy because I’m ignoring will in my chop, that is a fair argument to make it is a bit unfair to ignore will. Just don’t simultaneously go “You’re slighting Tyguy” and “you’re hell-bent on literally handing TyGuy a win by any means necessary”

Also I can be annoyed at proposals for multiple reasons

@Kevan

none of us were so far ahead that if the dynasty continued another 20 stops, someone else couldn’t easily catch up. So I disagree that its a fine simulation of how the dynasty might have actually played out. If anything, it would’ve probably increased the odds someone new wins as most of us a tired of the same people winning so would’ve continued to team up with new players / players who haven’t won in a couple of years and help them win.

[Clucky] This is a dynasty where mantle passing is heavily restricted, and teaming up with newer players can be a particular liability (I think Josh mentioned an early alliance idling out; you yourself were only a few hours away from being whisked away to a Starting Point by still being in Tech’s car when they timed out). I think it would have gone down to pure Conventional or Scam, giving the edge to players who’d already built up resources, or already combed the ruleset and had back-pocket scams set up.

If we end a dynasty early, I think we should always try to end it on what the gameplay was, if we can - not by what someone thinks the metagame mood might be. By all means propose “players who haven’t won a dynasty get double income” at the start of the next dynasty.

> If we end a dynasty early, I think we should always try to end it on what the gameplay was

giving player 1 who got 17 coins, 3 souveiners, and 5 will 5x the odds of player 2 who got 2 less coins, three less souviners, and 1 more will does not seem to me to an accurate way of “what the gameplay was”

especially when player 3 will likely end getting 6 more coins, same number of souveiners, and 1 less will. But only get the same odds of winning as player 1.

CoV, I win more with the other one

COV

Withdrawn