Thursday, August 13, 2015

Proposal: Corps Need More Tool

Times out and fails, 3-4. Josh

Adminned at 16 Aug 2015 15:47:00 UTC

Add the following as a new rule, entitled Defence Generation, to the ruleset, as a subrule of the rule called “Corporate Defence”:

As a daily action, a Corp can sell one of its Secrets for a one-time increase of 2 to their Defence Score.

Add the following to the list of Valid Security Measures:

* = - Tracking Device - If a successful Hack is carried out against a Corp Name with this Valid Security Measure then the Corp Name may, once within 24 hours of the successful hack, remove this Valid Security Measure and increase their Secrets by 2.

In the rule entitled Corporate Defence, change “A Hacker may resolve an Investigation at any point” to “A Hacker may resolve an Investigation that they started at any point”. In the same rule, add “and may increase their own Secrets by 1” to the end of the last sentence.

posted by Josh at 13 Aug 2015 09:00:00 UTC Comments (12)

Comments

ShareDVI:

13-08-2015 09:28:28 UTC

BTW, about Investigations ..how do I remove a Codename from GNDT if I’m not an admin?

Josh: he/they

13-08-2015 10:13:15 UTC

Fair question. We’ll have to change the rules to compel an admin to do it for you.

Kevan: he/him

13-08-2015 11:13:30 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

13-08-2015 11:30:18 UTC

Although it looks like this gives us ”[The Hacker] may then remove the Codename from the GNDT; any subroutines it had in its Tool or Secrets it had accumulated are lost and may increase their own Secrets by 1.” which isn’t quite grammatical, and tries to give a Secret to a Hacker, when it’s Corp Names that have Secrets.

Have proposed a patch.

Josh: he/they

13-08-2015 11:32:44 UTC

Ugh, thanks.

Darknight: he/him

13-08-2015 14:43:15 UTC

imperial

Purplebeard:

13-08-2015 14:46:34 UTC

for

Winner:

13-08-2015 16:44:33 UTC

for

ShareDVI:

13-08-2015 20:20:33 UTC

IDK, something about this conversion doesn’t feel right against

Winner:

13-08-2015 23:32:23 UTC

against Actually after thinking this over, this makes self hacking too good.

Kevan: he/him

14-08-2015 10:44:17 UTC

against CoV. Might be too much of an incentive for players to Investigate Codenames purely to 1:1 convert Defence into Secrets. The Secret should at least be negated if anyone can prove that the Codename was being run by a different Hacker.

Evo:

14-08-2015 18:05:17 UTC

against  Increasing secrets by two seems like a rule that can be scammed.