Friday, November 08, 2019

Proposal: Duty calls again

popular 5-0 with 1 def vote

Adminned at 09 Nov 2019 19:52:19 UTC

In the rule “Battles”, amend the second step of the Vanguard’s Atomic Action as follows:

Choose a non-Monster Adventurer that is not Recovering; if no such Adventurer exists, choose any non-Monster Adventurer.

In the same rule’s last paragraph, in the end of the clause “Choose a random non-Vanguard…” replace the full-stop with a semi-colon and append the following:

if no such Adventurer exists, ignore the condition “non-Recovering” while performing this action.

If an Adventurer is the Vanguard of an occurring Battle [...] Choose an Adventurer that is not Recovering.

If the most recent X Battle Actions in the current Battle (where X is quorum) include a Battle Action by a particular Adventurer, then that Adventurer is Recovering; otherwise that Adventurer is not Recovering.

The interaction of Dynastic Distance with the above two rules creates a problem of numbers. Right now there are six Adventurers, of whom one is the Priest. He is not currently allowed to fight in Battles, which leaves five Adventurers to fight. If one is the Vanguard and four other Adventurers are Recovering, that leaves no option left for the next Vanguard… And that’s if the Monster is not recovering.

We could replace “X” with “X-2”, which would also work if another Adventurer were to idle and five of us were left (God forbid): Five minus the Priest, the Monster and the Vanguard leaves two Adventurers… Quorum minus two would make for one recovering Adventurer who is definitely not the Monster. But that might still leave us in a pickle if even one Adventurer were declared Weary (non-active). So I think the simplest way to solve this is to discount Recovering status when choosing a successor in case of such low numbers, but maintain it as is for the other situations where this status is used.

The first of my two amendments also closes the loophole that a Vanguard could choose a non-Recovering Monster as their successor. At best, the Monster wouldn’t do anything, essentially pausing the Battle for 36 hours, or would just attack as it usually might. At worst, or at least until “True Turn-based Mode - ON” is enacted, this would allow the Monster to use Slash or Retreat against other Adventurers!


Kevan: he/him

08-11-2019 14:10:15 UTC

imperial Could make it “a quorum of non-Monster Adventurers”? Seems useful to be able to avoid passing the Vanguard to an inactive player who clearly isn’t going to do anything with it (and may even idle out, breaking the Vanguard chain).


08-11-2019 14:21:18 UTC


The Duke of Waltham: he/him

08-11-2019 15:29:54 UTC

My proposal doesn’t deprive Vanguards of the ability to select their successors; it just means they can now select Recovering Adventurers if they cannot find any non-Recovering ones (making sure to avoid inactive players to the best of their ability).

If we want the Weary Vanguard’s successor not to be random, this is something we could change in a subsequent proposal… Perhaps the selection could revert to the previous Vanguard, who chose the inactive Vanguard and is now required to do penance.

I see you’ve also taken full advantage of the loophole I’ve pointed out. Perhaps this one ought to have been a CfJ after all, hehe.

Kevan: he/him

08-11-2019 16:18:27 UTC

Ah, misunderstood where you were going with this.

And yes, I spotted the loophole as soon as I became the Monster and took at look at my options.

for CoV in case it needs it.


08-11-2019 18:34:46 UTC

I think this doesn’t solve the problem. Mostly we’ll all be required to take turns in exactly the order we started with. 3 recovering humans, one recovering monster, and one vanguard with one remaining human to pass to, weary or not. It’s not a big deal just now, but I suggest we use -1 quorum or something.

The real problem with Q-2 is balance, as the Monster gets more turns that way.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

08-11-2019 18:43:46 UTC

Is it possible that my extensive notes following the proposal make it look as if they are the proposal? Although I didn’t use TyGuy’s argument, I was aware of this aspect of the Q-2 idea and it’s one reason why I don’t like it. My proposal is to ditch the “non-Recovering” condition if there are too few Adventurers.


08-11-2019 19:48:27 UTC

Gotcha. Yeah, I was just thinking out loud about further solutions. I settled on “Rest…” Proposal.


09-11-2019 19:51:21 UTC