Friday, March 26, 2021

Proposal: Best of the Best

self killed—Clucky

Adminned at 27 Mar 2021 05:40:26 UTC

Add a new sub-rule to the Victory rule, called The Crown Match:

When the second Player to reach 30 Magistrelli does so, the Dealer will immediately set every Player’s Readiness to “No”, and then set the Readiness of the first and second Players to reach 30 Magistrelli to “Yes”.
From this point onward, players may no longer change their own Readiness, the first and second Players who reached 30 Magistrelli are the Contenders, and all other players are Spectators and may not become Contenders. The Contenders may not participate in Games other than the Crown Match. Spectators may at any time spend six of their own pegs to give a Contender a single peg as long as neither the Spectator nor the Contender is in an Active Game.
At any point at least 24 hours after the Contenders are decided, if there are no Active Games, the Dealer may start a special Game called the Crown Match. The Contenders are the Participants of the Crown Match.
The Campione of the Crown Match is the victor of the Twenty-Eighth Dynasty of Kevan.

here’s a nice compromise, with a little bit of tournament and a little bit of race-to-the-VP-goal!! i’m not sure *what* the effect of Spectators giving the Contenders their pegs will be, but that’s for future-us to find out :U

posted by lemon at 26 Mar 2021 16:33:00 UTC Comments (13)

Comments

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 16:57:14 UTC

I like it.  for

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 16:59:54 UTC

Although it may need some tweaking around what happens if a second player goes over 30 while other games are ongoing, especially if one of those games resolves with a player going to a higher over-30 value.

Kevan: he/him

26-03-2021 17:18:42 UTC

imperial That final game could come down to who gets dealt the best hand, but even “toss a coin to see which of two leading players wins the dynasty” might be alright.

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 17:22:34 UTC

@ kevan see the follow-up proposal for an answer to that exact trouble!!

Raven1207: he/they

26-03-2021 18:08:59 UTC

imperial

Lulu: she/her

26-03-2021 19:03:44 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

26-03-2021 19:05:52 UTC

against I’m afraid this would turns the dynasty into “who can grind out the most games to get the highest magistrelli score the fastest”

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 19:51:39 UTC

So this dynasty is fun, but clucky is right: it has an instant-win use case, in that I can wait until everyone’s in a game (or has their readiness status set to “no”) and can then chew through games with a confederate, sfida’ing to to the max before declining them to quickly end the game before starting new ones. This way two people could get up to 30 really quickly.

Probably needs a flood control to be viable.

Clucky: he/him

26-03-2021 19:59:48 UTC

seems to safe thing to do is to fail this, get flood control in place, and then make the proposal again

when doing so, we also need to fix “reach 30 Magistrelli” into “reach 30 or more Magistrelli” as technically a player could zoom right past 30 and never actually reach it.

Josh: he/they

26-03-2021 20:05:43 UTC

Personally I think we could pass it and trust the honour system not to abuse a busted scam - especially one that relies on Kevan’s participation - I’m generally a bigger fan of passing and fixing than endless reproposing - especially given that this is close to the top of a queue so a proposed fix would likely pass with it.

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 20:06:03 UTC

@ clucky good point, i can re-propose in a lil bit!! one thing to note with the flood thing tho, @ josh, is that games starting *is* 100% dependent on the dealer actually matching u, and there’s no role that says when he does or doens’t have to!

not saying flood control isn’t needed, just saying that might be a lever we can pull, like, giving the Dealer rules or guidelines for selection for example

in any case, i’ll take this one down, fully integrate the best-of-3 format bc that one seems to be favoured, and then put it back up later once somebody else has passed a floodgate proposal!

self-kill for later re-proposal: against

lemon: she/her

26-03-2021 20:07:36 UTC

@ josh, my bad didn’t see that comment before it was too late :‘u

its not the end of the world tho

Clucky: he/him

26-03-2021 20:51:34 UTC

The game shouldn’t have to come down to Kevan’s judgement calls of “when is it appropriate to start a new game between players”

I think also, we don’t want to rush flood control. If my proposal passes, it solves the problem. But people shouldn’t have to go “we need this to pass to avoid the other rule we passed possibly ending the game”. And leaving a scam in place long term and just trusting honor system for people not to take advantage of it is a bit sketch. So I think the sk is a good call, but we should definitely bring the idea back in the near future.