Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Proposal: Come out to the coast [Defence]

Unpopular, as this would modify Surveillance Systems and TyGuy6 “is both occupying the Zone associated with that rule and has a valid Vote of AGAINST on that Proposal”. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 13 Oct 2021 09:37:03 UTC

Add the following as a Zone Rule to the rules Floors, Security, Trading Post and Surveillance Systems:

Ducts: A Citizen is Prepared if they haven’t changed their Goal in the last 12 hours. Any Prepared Citizen in this Zone immediately moves to the lowest floor of the Zone with a Ducts Zone Rule that is closest to the first Zone or Floor named in their Goal, moving to the lowest applicable Zone if there is a tie. If they don’t have a Zone or Floor named in their Goal then this has no effect.

We’ll get together, have a few laughs


Kevan: he/him

12-10-2021 12:15:49 UTC

“immediately moves to the Zone” is ambiguous - which Floor of the Zone?

And again, “Proposals are discouraged from referencing Goals directly” also goes for enacted rules: it introduces timing issues, because Goals can be changed at any time during voting. Someone being asked to vote on a proposal that included “move Tuttle to Floor 13, a Duct Zone” doesn’t know exactly what outcome they’re voting on, because Tuttle can (if he’s alert) set his Goal after votes have been cast. It also rewards players who are alert, awake and serendipitous enough to be able to set their Goal just after a rival has set theirs.

There’s also admin advantage in being able to recalculate and modify a Goal right before enacting a proposal that would send the admin into a Duct.

Would be good to see some ducts in the building, though. Maybe they could just take the player further in the direction that brought them there.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 12:23:43 UTC

I’ve amended the Floor issue, thanks.

I guess I feel like the following factors mitigate the goals issue: Firstly, Ducts are deliberately only present in rules that don’t have any other zone rules or features, so can’t be used to surprisingly nab something through veiled intent. Secondly, the game is moving in a semi-co-op direction, where we seem to be working together to impede Katelyn (I anticipate a future VC coming in that rewards holding her off from her destination), so timing scams should hopefully be less of an issue.

The only thing vents make sense for, to me, is speedy movement. It’s also intended to synergise with my next proposal.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2021 13:01:07 UTC

Hm, this also needs clarification of what happens if a Duct traveller doesn’t have a Floor specified in their Goal.

But either Duct travel has a significant impact on the game, or it doesn’t. If it does, it creates admin advantage, and a bonus for players who check in a lot or live an auspicious timezone. If it doesn’t, we perhaps don’t need a rule for it.

Having a player move to the next Duct in whichever direction they were headed seems fine for speedy (but deterministic) movement.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 13:13:57 UTC

I’d appreciate a follow-up on whether the Hacked Copbots (from the Katelyn Vs proposal) make the current text feel more appropriate.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2021 13:35:48 UTC

That Duct travel lets you bypass Hacked Copbots? It’s good thematic stuff, but I can’t see that it changes the basic timing issue.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 13:52:22 UTC

I guess the idea is that moving through a duct isn’t a timing issue because in and of itself it’s not gaining your anything, except bypassing obstacles - you’d still need another move after that to actually achieve what you’re setting out to do.

I’m reluctant to make it deterministic movement just because if there are going to be obstacles then having truncated abilities to move around them becomes frustrating rather than fun.

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2021 14:08:00 UTC

Choosing which of the four boring Duct Floors to end your move on does gain you things: you can veto proposals that amend that Zone, you can avoid being on a Floor that has Punks on it, you can join another player to give them an item or shoot them or attract Copbots to them, you can Endanger your way into the floor below.

An admin or alert player can wait until a move proposal is about to enact, and make their best choice at the last minute, with their rivals having no chance to respond. A slower player cannot. That might be fun for the former, but it’s frustrating for the latter, and a reason for them to vote down move proposals that put anyone into a Duct.

I like the Copbot duct stuff, but that doesn’t need Goal-changing timing stuff to work. You could propose it directly as a level of nuance on move proposals: “move Josh to Floor 22 through the Ducts, and Brendan to Floor B8 the regular way”.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 14:17:03 UTC

I honestly don’t see that kind of timing issue being a factor in the game as it stands… But I’ll try to have a think about it.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 15:08:10 UTC

I’ve made a change that might split the difference, effectively removing the possibility of using enactment scams to utilise this.

Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 15:22:01 UTC

Oh, hey, also,

Initiate defence override protocol, I guess!

Kevan: he/him

12-10-2021 15:59:30 UTC

The proposals-as-actions idea of this dynasty was in part to avoid the kind of gameplay where a critical game ac—##[CONTROL FEED OFFLINE]##


##[IN 2]##

##[IN 1]##



Snisbo: she/they

12-10-2021 18:32:37 UTC


Josh: he/they

12-10-2021 18:45:20 UTC

@SNSB Why?

Snisbo: she/they

12-10-2021 19:29:57 UTC

Not a fan of how it restricts your movement options if you’re prepared. If it allowed for you to choose whether you move. I understand you can just not let yourself become prepared, but that requires being able to change your goal every 12 hours, and I, for one, don’t have the time for that.

Aside from that, “the closest” duct can place you somewhere you don’t want to be. Aiming for a specific floor is very different than aiming for somewhere in that general area.

Even though I don’t think it would immediately affect me, the potential of unwanted movement/movement somewhere you don’t want to go ruins this proposal for me, though a faster travel mechanic isn’t unwarranted or unwanted.


12-10-2021 20:17:07 UTC

Not a fan of how unpredictable this type of movement could be, as it combines zoning (ruleset plus proposals) with both aspects of the wiki (tower plus goals), not to mention the timing issues.  against

Brendan: he/him

12-10-2021 20:29:24 UTC

for With “Nomad Iterate Elevators” on the way to passing, there are enough safeguards against potential unwanted movement in play, I think.

redtara: they/them

13-10-2021 00:19:25 UTC

against Nice try…

redtara: they/them

13-10-2021 00:19:39 UTC

Clever but no.

Raven1207: he/him

13-10-2021 02:44:17 UTC