Wednesday, April 12, 2023

Proposal: Experts in their field

Withdrawn. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 13 Apr 2023 23:12:20 UTC

Add a new rule named “Expertise” and give it the following text:

Each Engineer has a publicly-tracked integer named Expertise that defaults to 0.

There is a publicly-tracked variable named Performance Review that defaults to empty.

Whenever the Performance Review contains a date and time, if there is only 1 Engineer who has the highest Expertise at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, that Engineer achieves victory.

If there are 2 or more Engineers who have the highest Expertise at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, any Engineer or the City Architect may add 48 hours to the date and time in the Performance Review.

In the rule “The Building”, add the following text to the end of the bullet that begins with “Spend any amount of Focus”

Track the Risk of this Build action where Risk = N - Building Stability.

In the rule “Safety Checks”, replace this bullet:

* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, count the number of Gaps in the Building at that time and add this number to their Safety Checks

with these bullets:

* If the Build atomic action was completed in the previous step of this Inspection, and the Building is not Collapsed at the time of this completion, add the Risk of the Build completed during this Inspection to their Expertise
* If at least 1 Engineer has an Expertise of at least 100, and the Performance Review is empty, set the Performance Review to the current date and time rounded down to the nearest minute

For each Engineer who does not have a Specialisation and whose Safety Checks are at least equal to the Building Number, set their Safety Checks to 10.

For each Engineer who has a Specialisation, set their Safety Checks to 7 minus the value of the Building Number at the time that they most recently set their Specialisation.

Another attempt at WinCon. This time, victory is tied to the amount of risk you take when you Build during an Inspection. Safety Checks become only currency for setting Specialisation. Resetting every active Engineer’s Safety Checks ensures a fair start if they are only gained 1 at a time from a successful Build.

Expertise is an integer and can go negative. If you play it too safe during an Inspection, you get penalized.

Comments

Brendan: he/him

12-04-2023 15:03:28 UTC

I’m not sure “any Engineer or the City Architect may add 48 hours to the date and time in the Performance Review” does what you’re intending—does it mean that “any player can edit the Performance Review and increase the time and date in it by 48 hours?” Adding the hours to it of one’s own accord doesn’t necessarily change anything about the review.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

12-04-2023 15:28:10 UTC

@Brendan: how so? Once the date and time in the Performance Review has changed, the clause “the Engineer who has the highest Expertise at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review achieves victory” would then be evaluated at 48 hours after the new date and time.

I don’t quite see the flaw that you’re seeing.

Brendan: he/him

12-04-2023 15:32:53 UTC

Mmm, I was thinking that one could “add 48 hours” and get a summed time/date without actually updating the post. “Ah, I see the recorded expiration date is Wednesday at noon. I hereby add 48 hours, yielding Friday at noon. No need to do anything with that information!” But I suppose in that case any other Engineer could just make the update too, it’s not like it’s a communal action.

Even so, I think “the Engineer who has the highest Expertise” could use clarifying that victory doesn’t trigger if multiple players are tied. This has been a point of contention before.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

12-04-2023 15:50:31 UTC

Ok, fixed. There’s about an hour left to do more edits if you see anything else that needs tweaking.

Brendan: he/him

12-04-2023 17:32:39 UTC

for

Lulu: she/her

12-04-2023 17:41:42 UTC

for

jjm3x3: he/him

12-04-2023 20:01:21 UTC

I overall like this, but I am a bit concerned that this could cause quite a lot of disincentive to build early in a building. I get that awarding negative expertise forces engineers to not play it too safe but I wonder if there is a way we can do that without the early play downside.

Brendan: he/him

12-04-2023 20:47:25 UTC

[jjm3x3] Risk would only be factored out of Builds done during an Inspection—regular daily-action Builds would not have any effect on Expertise, positive or negative.

jjm3x3: he/him

12-04-2023 22:33:44 UTC

Ah, Thanks @Brendan I misread that imperial

Kevan: he/him

13-04-2023 08:37:26 UTC

Is this saying that all a player needs to do to win the dynasty is make potentially just one lucky die roll? If the Building has 8 Gaps and 100 Stability (which is about where we are now) and someone rolls in the 70-99 range on their DICE200, that’s probably enough to win, unless the subsequent player is even luckier? It’s going to be hard for anyone to overtake them in 48 hours, working from a new Building.

against

Also, no objection to refunding Brendan alone for having become an early outlier, but I don’t like the idea that the five of us who’ve been playing and scamming the game over the past two weeks to gain Safety Checks needn’t have bothered, if this enacts and if I’ve read that right - that we’ll be no further ahead than a new or inactive player who has taken a single game action.

Josh: he/they

13-04-2023 10:50:03 UTC

As a new or inactive player who has taken very few game actions,  for

Lulu: she/her

13-04-2023 11:42:53 UTC

against cov

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

13-04-2023 12:50:59 UTC

@Misty: why the Cov? If there’s something you didn’t like, let me know, so I can try to address it in another Proposal.

Habanero:

13-04-2023 14:25:12 UTC

against per Kevan

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

13-04-2023 19:00:39 UTC

against Withdrawn to avoid blocking the queue