Three criticisms.

First, the technical one: it looks like a turn boundary will fall on early December 4th during a time when few players tend to be on, with a significant chance of a lead change resulting in two players achieving victory in the span of a couple of hours in a way that requires the immediate participation of neither. The victory condition should be constructed to avoid that kind of DoV race.

Second, the flavor one: it has been the intent since the ascension address, reinforced with the original victory proposal, that the win be awarded to an individual Visitor rather than equally shared within a Group.

Finally, the gameplay one: This flattens the various stamps’ values too much, they should not be considered interchangeable.

Criticisms, is it.

This is part of the Advance the Queues action, so will only occur after the lead change has happened.

Flavour has now been added to encourage the winner to nominate one of their Visitors as the Heir.

I wouldn’t mind seeing an amendment to give a curve of values, but your original proposal considered all non-Z Stamps to be interchangeable.

I plan to DEF this, and propose a different formula if it passes.

  let’s just rewrite from scratch

This is taking it back to the basic idea of “game ends on a certain date and stamps are important”, which seems okay to me, but building it back up differently.