Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Proposal: Frankensteins always work

Open for 48 hours, passes 4-1. — Quirck

Adminned at 23 Aug 2012 10:46:37 UTC

If the proposal “Return of The Apology” has passed, change the text of the rule “Trading” to the text contained in block quotes below.

Otherwise, create a new rule “Trading”, with the text of the rule set to the text contained in block quotes below.

As a daily action, a Baker (“the trader”) may request to trade their pies with one other Baker (“the tradee”) by making a post with TRADE, in all caps, in the title. The post must specify, the name of the tradee, which pies they wish to give, and the which pies they want to receive.

The trade is considered Pending until the trader cancels the trade by making a comment to the post containing the text “CANCEL”, in all caps, or the tradee accepts the trade by making a comment to the post containing the text “ACCEPT”, in all caps. Once a trade is canceled or accepted, it ceases to be pending. A non-Pending trade cannot be canceled nor accepted.

If the tradee accepts the trade, and if at that time the trader possesses all the pies they wished to give and the tradee possesses all the pies the trader wished to receive, then the pies the trader wished to give are transferred from the trader to the tradee, and the pies the trader wished to receive are transferred from the tradee to the trader.

posted by southpointingchariot at 21 Aug 2012 17:43:36 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

GreyWithAnE:

21-08-2012 18:59:10 UTC

against

With this change, the traders can still upgrade on days that they trade with each other, which makes it a little too easy to collude and allow the two players to work as one “super-player” who gets two daily uprgrade actions.

That kind of collusion could be prevented by enacting 2 more changes:

1) Making players choose between trading and upgrading as their daily action

2) Limiting numbers of pies traded in a single move.  1-for-1 would be safest but pretty boring…maybe “equal numbers exchanged, but no more than 3-for-3”?

I know this is a little more restrictive than what I posted on the previous proposal, but I’ve thought it out more since then.

Clucky: he/him

21-08-2012 20:09:07 UTC

having upgrading and trading take the same action would just slow the game now, not solve that problem.

could maybe let me veto trades that are clearly OPed, but honestly like, if people want to kingmake then whatever. this is supposed to be a nice fun dynasty and I don’t want it to get weighed down in lots of rules so for

quirck: he/him

21-08-2012 20:35:47 UTC

for

southpointingchariot:

21-08-2012 20:57:17 UTC

Grey, though your ideas seem well thought out, I don’t really like them. I want lots of trading, and I’m not as worried about super players as you.

Cpt_Koen:

22-08-2012 12:04:58 UTC

“2) Limiting numbers of pies traded in a single move.  1-for-1 would be safest but pretty boring…maybe “equal numbers exchanged, but no more than 3-for-3”?”
If there is no restriction on the number of moves, limited the number of pies traded in a single move would only lead to trades being divided amongst several blog posts.

Yeah, all trading mechanics allow for two players to play as one (or worst, you could convince a friend of yours to join blognomic just to give you more pies). I don’t think there is a solution against that kind of thing - if we want trading, we have to accept that.

for