What happens if a Fishing Contestant lands in occupied Cell due to being moved from a Disturbance? I know that rule says “legal adjacent cell in a random direction, if possible” but what I mean is, should the paying of Doubloons to the other occupants only apply to voluntary moves into a Cell, or should it also apply to involuntary moves?

Yeah that’s the intent. Paying for forced movement would be odd

I like that this adds some player interaction and adds some complexity to movement. It does create some timing plays that I’m not sure if I’m a fan of; e.g. the player who takes the Sight Disturbances action gets first choice of the Disturbances, which typically favors players who are awake at 0:00 UTC (if I understand the Daily Communal Action correctly).

So, I think my thoughts on this one are that firstly I agree with Lukas that the ability for a disturbance creator to essentially get the chance to block a well-placed disturbance does give an advantage to certain time zones. Not a major advantage given the low player count, but still an advantage.

Secondly, I’m not quite seeing what interesting possibilities it creates. We’re adding a new currency which is so far only used for disturbance blocking. I’d probably not object to a new proposal with doubloons, but I’d want to tie it to a different mechanic.

Good points above. I think there’s some parts of the doubloon idea worth salvaging but the timing issue appears to be too much (I was ready to play the timing game myself, but I understand not everyone is)

“We’re adding a new currency which is so far only used for disturbance blocking”

yes that is how nomic works you add a mechanic that gets uses in area rather than overloading it from the start with too much complexity

Agreed, and honestly, Disturbance-blocking is the best use of it at the start, since that’s the “gold mining” du jour. I’m happy if that continues to be the case.

Maybe instead of paying Doubloons to enter an occupied Cell, you pay to leave? It changes the timing aspect such that, if someone has already occupied a Disturbance, the next person who wants to occupy the same space has to decide whether or not to play chicken with the current occupant and determine who leaves first (and pays the other for the privilege of being able to leave).

Okay?

The point I’m making is that the sole current use of the mechanic is a mild negative. If a mechanic is harmful, you generally don’t vote it in with the aim of removing its one current use case and putting another in its place - that would be pointless.

That was @Clucky there

CoV . I’ve just seen Clucky’s proposal to add some randomness to the Sight Disturbance times, which removes my main reason to object.

Agreed, that addresses it. CoV

I think paying to enter is more interesting than paying to leave. paying to leave you’re encouraging players to stall and wait for someone else to move. paying to enter you’re encouraging players to take initiative

also I don’t really see disturbance blocking as harmful or a negative. I see it as a positive that allows for more interesting strategies around timing and where you choose to move

Okay, let’s try it