Monday, February 13, 2023

Proposal: Further Afield

Times out 7-1 and is enacted -SingularByte

Adminned at 15 Feb 2023 18:47:07 UTC

Add the following Locations to the rule “Location”:-

  • A Location called “Road” with Capacity 100 and Routes of “Village Square [10]”.
  • A Location called “Forest” with Capacity 100 and Routes of “Village Square [50], Makeshift Tent [50], Pork Curing Shed [50]”.
  • A Location called “Cellar” with Capacity 2 and Routes of “Pork Curing Shed [5]”.

Add “Cellar [5]” to Pork Curing Shed’s Routes, add “Road [12], Forest [35]” to the Village Square’s Routes, add “Forest [32]” to the Tent and Shed’s Routes.

Add Road and Forest to the list of locations considered to be Outside.

Comments

Josh: he/they

13-02-2023 11:03:20 UTC

I have some reluctance around making an indoor location that only connects to an indoor location - this would seem to strictly benefit Brendan, Darknight, Kevan and SingularByte to the exclusion of all others - but I’m also planning on idling over the illegibility of Fahrenheit in a proposal cycle or two so I’ll leave that for ongoing players to prosecute.

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2023 12:48:46 UTC

What benefit would that be?

Josh: he/they

13-02-2023 13:00:35 UTC

Immune to Grapples.

Josh: he/they

13-02-2023 14:55:22 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2023 15:21:29 UTC

Why those four players?

If your later Make Capacity Count proposal also enacts, either there’ll be some admin shenanigans where the enacting admin grabs a spot in the Cellar, or the most recent two Villagers to arrive in the Pork Shed (who could be anyone by that point) will get moved there.

If your proposal doesn’t enact, anyone can walk to the Cellar via the Shed.

Josh: he/they

13-02-2023 15:31:48 UTC

Most players seem to be happy to take the implicit restriction on “Capacity” at face value, on the assumption that flouting it too egregiously is going to get pushed back sooner or later; that you and Brendan seem willing to dance on the head of a pin about it is a choice that not everyone is making.

But sure: for whichever lucky souls end up in the Cellar benefit, which is why I’m happy to vote against.

Kevan: he/him

13-02-2023 15:54:10 UTC

I think most active players have been weighing up moving versus searching, rather than believing they were stuck outside due to an implicit but unwritten game rule.

Given the desperate blizzard setting and the lack of any defined restriction, I was reading Capacity as the advisory limit of an elevator, with the downside to overcrowding yet to be revealed. I didn’t think I was pulling off an audacious scam by ignoring an undefined game term.

JonathanDark: he/him

13-02-2023 16:26:58 UTC

for

I think we can mitigate any perceived benefit from going “further inside” with other tweaks and mechanics. I don’t see any long-term issues with this.

A proposal with an indoor location that connects to another indoor location was inevitable, and will continue to be so unless a rule is proposed that prevents such connections. If anyone has strong feelings about this, propose a rule to make sure it can’t happen.

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

13-02-2023 23:38:55 UTC

imperial

Darknight: he/him

14-02-2023 02:06:45 UTC

imperial

Habanero:

14-02-2023 02:48:21 UTC

for

SingularByte: he/him

14-02-2023 07:12:25 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

14-02-2023 20:14:08 UTC

for