Tuesday, January 17, 2023

Proposal: Choices Matter

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 6 by Kevan.

Adminned at 19 Jan 2023 09:01:37 UTC

Under the antecedent in the Ruleset;

Optionally, they may also do one of the following:

Append a point as follows:

* Remove 6 of any two type or 4 of any one type of a resource from their Stockpile. If the Settler has removed 6 of any two type or 4 of any one type this way; they may replace any of their Domain to any valid value for Domains.

Comments

JonathanDark: he/him

17-01-2023 16:07:25 UTC

“any of their Domain” should that be “any one of their Domains”, or did you intend to leave it open to replace one or more Domain values?

Also, if it is “any one”, could a Settler do this multiple times in between Production of Resources as long as they had the resources in their Stockpile?

Chiiika: she/her

17-01-2023 16:13:40 UTC

@JD
one or more; yep.
also; this is grouped into Harvests so you cannot harvest; reset values; then harvest again so no; you can only do this once when you Harvest

Chiiika: she/her

17-01-2023 16:14:14 UTC

@JD
one or more; yep.
also; this is grouped into Harvests so you cannot harvest; reset values; then harvest again so no; you can only do this once when you Harvest

Chiiika: she/her

17-01-2023 16:14:51 UTC

oof

JonathanDark: he/him

17-01-2023 16:19:45 UTC

Oh yeah, right, I see now where this would be going. Sorry I missed that.

As far as replacing all of the Domain values by expending just 2 resources, that seems a bit undervalued. A Church cost 2 Stone and allows just 1 Domain number replacement.

Would you consider raising the resource cost? I’m not sure what would be appropriate, but somewhere in the 4-6 range feels right.

Chiiika: she/her

17-01-2023 16:25:01 UTC

Yep - did that; 6 on two resource types or 4 of one

Kevan: he/him

17-01-2023 16:47:34 UTC

Seems like it’s diminishing the other mechanics, to broadly say that a glut of anything is always good for a Domain reset - and that it can be used to dodge the now-bad-for-rich-players-maybe Thug?

Would seem more interesting if that player was under pressure to Trade a glut away at cost, or invest it into Buildings that they maybe didn’t entirely need right now.

Josh: he/they

17-01-2023 21:11:42 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/him

17-01-2023 22:11:13 UTC

imperial

Trapdoorspyder: Onlooker

18-01-2023 01:02:04 UTC

against I feel as though this isn’t super necessary given the fact that churches basically do the same thing.

Kevan: he/him

18-01-2023 08:43:40 UTC

against

quirck: he/him

18-01-2023 12:04:20 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/him

18-01-2023 15:54:20 UTC

Cov against

JonathanDark: he/him

18-01-2023 16:09:00 UTC

imperial