Sunday, June 12, 2022

Proposal: Capitalism Strikes Again

Timed out 1 vote to 4. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 14 Jun 2022 08:53:27 UTC

In the rule “The Queue”, change the following line:

Optionally perform a Promenade (if no other Guardian has done so since the most recent Auguring)

to:

Optionally spend 10 Money, 10 Piety and 10 Livestock to perform a Promenade

Asked about this in the discord and didn’t get much feedback, so I’m posting this here

The pace of the game has been really slow so far, this would make it so that anyone can perform a promenade at basically any moment if they have the resources. The Oracle would still be able to promenade if everyone decides to just camp it out

Comments

Josh: he/him

12-06-2022 09:10:55 UTC

That cost is extremely large - we’re weeks away from anybody being able to afford this even once, so it doesn’t open access up at all.

More to the point, at the moment people largely *can* Promenade whenever they want to, as the only restriction is whether anyone else has done so since the last Auguring and largely no-one has. So players are choosing not to do that action rather than being restricted out of it - meaning that an incentive would be more meaningful than a cost, as an increased cost is going to make people less likely to do it, not more.

Josh: he/him

12-06-2022 10:21:30 UTC

This would also not allow a player to “perform a promenade at basically any moment” as it would still be part of the Declaring atomic action - if you want this to be more of an at-will thing then it would need to be taken out of the atomic action altogether.

Kevan: he/him

12-06-2022 13:51:10 UTC

imperial A player not having to check the wiki history to work out whether they’re currently allowed to take the action is a good thing, but the cost does seem prohibitively high.

lendunistus: he/him

12-06-2022 14:00:44 UTC

@Josh right, didn’t consider that

how about making it a separate atomic action and making the cost 3 or 5 of each resource, BUT also making the cost increase by 1 every time a promenade occurs?

Kevan: he/him

12-06-2022 14:07:14 UTC

As Emperor I’m still very strongly against adding off-clock actions: the Queue is the game, and if it’s moving slowly (which I think we’re almost past, now) we should make modifications to keep it moving rather than adding break-out, cash-prize minigames to pass the time - because all of those minigames will slow the queue down if players wait to see their outcome before taking a turn.

(If Promenading became a standalone atomic, the player who’s turn it was may choose to delay things by shopping around to see if anyone else was willing to Promenade before they took that turn, so that they’d have more resources to spend in it.)

Josh: he/him

12-06-2022 14:14:53 UTC

Definitely a separate atomic action.

The question is, what are you actually looking to achieve here? Have it happen more often, sure, but do you want it to be something that is primarily done by players earlier in the queue - i.e. a small potential control advantage for players in earlier positions? Because if it is an early-mixer advantage - it’s cheaper for players earlier in the queue - then that’s only likely to be desirable if it’s offset by some other late-mover advantage. At the moment, with the way artifacts work, the ruleset feels like it has an inherent early-mover advantage, so compounding that seems like a mistake. I’d probably vote against making it increasing in cost through use.

3-5 of each resource also seems wrong, as at the moment money is easier to generate than piety, which in turn is easier to generate than livestock, which is quite hard to get in numbers. A 5-3-1 ratio along those lines might be justifiable. But you also don’t want to make it a no-brainer - if we get to a point where players are routinely taking their Declaring action then immediately promenading because promenading strictly gains them more than they’re spending then we get runaway inflation.

On the whole I think that this is quite tricky and largely possibly not worth doing - resource generation rates feel about right at the moment, with costs and scarcity appropriately balanced, so I’m worried that a change like this would be very hard to construct so that it was both balanced and didn’t destroy the economy. That’s just my opinion though, and I’m open to seeing another draft.

In any case, the issues above make this iteration an against from me.

Trapdoorspyder:

12-06-2022 18:27:09 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/him

13-06-2022 04:04:51 UTC

against