Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Proposal: Bot to the Future

Timed out. Passes 6-2 (5 fors, jumble’s also resolves to for)—clucky

Adminned at 13 Aug 2021 17:03:31 UTC

Add a new dynastic rule called “Bots” with the following text

Bots are Workers for the purposes of dynastic rules only. Bots start with the same default values which other Workers have. Each Bot has a name, and a set of behavior that describes how the bot operates. Bots are tracked alongside the other Workers on the dynastic tracking page, but their rows are given a background color of #cff to help signify they are a bot.

The list of bots and their behavior is below:

* Name: Sharebot. Behavior: Provided they have not already done so since the last Cycle, any Worker may cause Sharebot to perform any action which Sharebot is legally allowed to perform.
* Name: Sleepybot. Behavior: Sleepybot cannot perform any actions
* Name: Cogbot. Behavior: If no Worker has done so since the last Cycle, a Worker may turn on Cogbot. When Cogbot is turned on it performs the following atomic action: Cogbot first activate its cold spin machines until it either has no more cold spin machines or no more energy. Cogbot then activates its cold clink machines, always using its largest value box, until it either has no more cold clink machines or no more boxes. When choosing between which machine to activate out of those which fit the criteria for a given step, Cogbot always chooses the machine earliest in its machine list

Give Cogbot two clink machines (for a total of 3) and 3 spin machines.

Redoing bots, adding third bot type for funsizes that just hoards cogs, and putting limits on sharebot abuse because sharing is caring.

Comments

ais523:

11-08-2021 18:33:31 UTC

This version of the proposal still doesn’t fix the concerns I had about the previous version – it’s very likely to do nothing but clutter the dynastic tracking page, and if it does do something, then it’ll probably break the dynasty.

Clucky: he/him

11-08-2021 18:59:31 UTC

sorry you think fun mechanics that embrace the automation nature of the dynasty don’t do anything for it

ais523:

11-08-2021 21:08:00 UTC

The two possibilities are “this affects who wins” and “this doesn’t affect who wins” and, given the nature of the mechanics, neither seems particularly fun to me.

against

Lulu: she/her

11-08-2021 22:56:47 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

11-08-2021 23:20:45 UTC

@Jumble why the def vote when you were originally for the idea, only to switch to against for a reason that has now been fixed in the new version?

Lulu: she/her

12-08-2021 01:47:04 UTC

i’m less enthusiastic about the idea in general now

Raven1207: he/they

12-08-2021 01:51:51 UTC

against

lemon: she/her

12-08-2021 07:31:56 UTC

for

Kevan: City he/him

12-08-2021 11:18:12 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

12-08-2021 19:39:40 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

13-08-2021 00:43:58 UTC

imperial

Raven1207: he/they

13-08-2021 03:57:03 UTC

for

Vovix: he/him

13-08-2021 14:55:38 UTC

I agree with ais. Either this is just going to be busywork maintaining extra players, or there’s going to be some anticlimactic “and then I win because I got to Sharebot first”.  against