Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Proposal: Free-form disapproval, now with 30 times more disrespect!

Illegal - third pending proposal - coppro

Adminned at 10 Jan 2012 07:40:41 UTC

Create a new dynastic rule titled “Disrespect”:

Each Criminal has a “Disrespects” field in the GNDT, initially blank, which they can blank, or set to the name of a Criminal in their Former Partners list with at least 150 Respect, at any time.  When the value of a Criminal’s Disrespects field is set to the name of a Criminal, that Criminal’s Respect is decreased by 150; when it is changed from the name of a Criminal, that Criminal’s Respect is increased by 150.

To address Bucky’s points:

- The main purpose of this proposal is to address it being too hard to punish someone for not playing fair with asymmetric assisted actions.  While I strongly support asymmetry (it’s more interesting, even if the resulting factions are likely to put me at a disadvantage yet again), and the most interesting way to punish someone is with factions and lack of reciprocation, this is also pretty hard to set up, since the square law makes the cost to a faction of ejecting a member very high—an additional, more direct stick (or a few) would be useful.  Anyway, it makes a lot of thematic sense.

- The penalty was initially too low because I didn’t read the rules properly.  150 would be way too high without “Crime is hot”, since people would probably end up Stealing Masterpieces every hour for a pretty awful almost zero-sum game, but considering that organizing players to Steal Police Files will quickly become very annoying (e.g. if it’s been completed 15 times, completing it again would require 31 partner pairings, or 62 actions by different combinations of people editing the GNDT), and that there are 3 actions, as I see it, it won’t be long before Stealing Masterpieces awards hundreds of Respect a pop, and the penalty becomes relatively minor.  (But a higher value would be more likely to mess up the early game.)

- The proposal is buggy in the sense that idling will permanently lose you disrespect, but this is rather hard to work around under the current ruleset (the obvious way would be to treat Respect as 150 lower than its actual value rather than actually decreasing it, but that would be annoying to track) and not really the end of the world.

Comments

ChronosPhaenon:

10-01-2012 06:28:07 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

10-01-2012 06:43:26 UTC

for

Bucky:

10-01-2012 14:47:52 UTC

against Now we have the problem of multiple disrespects attempting to make someone’s Respect negative.

ais523:

10-01-2012 15:17:12 UTC

Illegal third proposal, isn’t this?