Wednesday, April 09, 2025

Proposal: Coin is the meaning of life

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 7 by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Apr 2025 19:57:19 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule named “Money” with the following body:

The Surplus is a publicly tracked non-negative integer defaulting to 0.

Each Agent has a certain amount of Money, which is a publicly tracked non-negative integer value defaulting to 0, and a Haul, which is privately tracked by the Concierge and is set to 0 at the beginning of each Breaking In action. Each Spot (that is not an Ingress) also has a certain amount of Income, which is a publicly tracked non-negative integer defaulting to 0. If all Incomes are 0, the Concierge may set each Income to an integer between 1 and 20 inclusive selected in a secretly random manner, separately for each Spot.

Directly after “is now considered to have Encountered that Guard”, add “. If a Burglar has Encountered three or more Guards during the course of this action, they are considered to be Caught for the remainder of this action”

Add the following substep to the end of the first step in the Breaking In atomic action in the rule “The Break-In” (if Loot Grabbin’ was enacted, add it before the substep that that Proposal added):

** If the Spot that the Agent’s Location was just set to has an Income and they are the only Agent at that Spot, add that Location’s Income to that Agent’s Haul

If Loot Grabbin’ was enacted, directly after “There are Spots which contain Artifacts, which are publicly tracked on the gamestate page as a list.”, add “If a Spot contains an Artifact, its Income is considered to be doubled for the purposes of the Breaking In atomic action.”

Add the following steps to the end of the Breaking In atomic action:

* Add up the Haul of every Burglar that wasn’t Caught. Divide that sum by the number of Burglars who weren’t caught, add the remainder to the Surplus and add an amount of Money equal to the rounded-down result of the division to each Burglar who wasn’t Caught
* Set the Income of each Spot that isn’t an Ingress to an integer between 1 and 20 inclusive, selected separately for each Spot in a secretly random manner.

 

a pretty quick draft

I was also envisioning a mechanic that would you betray other burglars but I’ll work on that later

Comments

SingularByte: he/him

10-04-2025 06:39:09 UTC

I’m not too sure about this one.

It looks like it makes being picked as a guard strictly worse than a burglar since burglars get a chance to rack up large hauls by finding a lucrative spot and just sitting in it for a few turns, while guards have no exclusive mechanics that benefit them. It feels like a recipe for it to be fools gold.

Plus, it feels like we’ve got too many forms of income already with no real outlet for them yet.
against

Josh: he/they

10-04-2025 07:25:13 UTC

imperial

Kevan: Concierge he/him

10-04-2025 08:08:19 UTC

arrow Leaning to agreeing with SingularByte on redundancy to Artifacts, particularly with how much data this would be adding to the sidebar, and how much effort players would need to make to mentally overlay that onto the game map.

A simpler “gain 1 money for every Spot visited by Burglars” could work if we wanted to incentivise general exploration.

ais523:

10-04-2025 11:00:56 UTC

arrow This looks almost as it’s intended to work towards a victory condition (which none of the existing mechanics really do yet), but if it is, it should give both teams an opportunity to work towards victory rather than only one.

It’s also weirdly redundant to some existing mechanics, and should possibly be designed to amend them rather than try to add parallel mechanics that do much the same thing.

JonathanDark: he/him

10-04-2025 13:06:50 UTC

arrow

Clucky: he/him

10-04-2025 14:26:35 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

10-04-2025 15:31:31 UTC

arrow

JonathanDark: he/him

10-04-2025 17:57:47 UTC

I realized there’s another issue with the REVISE icon. Since it is “treated the same as an AGAINST voting icon with respect to all other rules except when a rule explicitly describes other uses or effects of the REVISE voting icon”, it can make a proposal Unpopular unintentionally.

I think this proposal is technically Unpopular as a result, since if all REVISE icons are treated as AGAINST, then it falls under

A Votable Matter is Unpopular if any of the following are true:

*The number of Agents who are not voting AGAINST it is less than Quorum.

 

SingularByte: he/him

10-04-2025 18:24:32 UTC

I don’t think that’s an issue. The point of revise is to say it should fail and give the slot back. If it’s at the top of the queue, it doesn’t matter how it goes about exiting the queue, you’ll still get a slot back.

DoomedIdeas: he/him

10-04-2025 18:41:57 UTC

against

qenya: she/they

10-04-2025 19:16:35 UTC

against