Monday, August 20, 2012

Proposal: Granaries are not infinite

Passes 3-1. — Quirck

Adminned at 22 Aug 2012 02:54:46 UTC

To the rule “Pies”, add a subrule “Pie Quota” and give it the following text:

Whenever a Baker has more than 10 Pies of a certain flavor, the number of their Pies of that flavor is set to 10.

A Baker cannot have more than 20 Pies in total. If performing some action would result in at least one Baker having more than 20 Pies, that action may not be performed.

Upon enactment of this proposal, if some Baker has more than 20 Pies in total, replace all occurences of “20” in the second paragraph of the “Pie Quota” subrule with the maximum Total number of Pies held by any Baker.

Amend the rule called “Upgrades” by replacing “they gain one Empty Pie at the end of that day.” with

they gain one Empty Pie at the end of that day unless this is prohibited by the “Pie Quota” rule.

Do we need caps?

Comments

Clucky:

08-20-2012 14:56:37 UTC

for though we also need a better way to spend pies

Clucky:

08-20-2012 17:31:21 UTC

actually “If performing some action would result in at least one Baker having more than 20 Pies, that action may not be performed.” might be taken to say that a baker with 9 empty pies, 8 apple pies, and 3 cream pies *cannot* choose not to do an upgrade on a given day…

so against

quirck:

08-20-2012 18:02:08 UTC

Doesn’t “If a Baker does not perform this action during a day, they gain one Empty Pie at the end of that day unless this is prohibited by the “Pie Quota” rule.” take care of it? So when a Baker has 8,3,9,0,0 pies, he just can’t receive empty pies anymore, but he can still opt to not do upgrades since not doing upgrades does not increase his amount of pies.

Murphy:

08-20-2012 18:05:08 UTC

for

Clucky, I don’t understand the reasoning behind your objection. In particular, Rule 2.2 says inputs are spent before outputs are gained, while the default automatic daily gain is not an action (and thus prevented by the “cannot have more” clause).

GreyWithAnE:

08-20-2012 18:11:59 UTC

against

I agree with Clucky on the upgrade problem.  When someone with 8,3,9,0,0 decides to upgrade Empty to Apple, for instance, that is an action whose result is that the Baker will have 20 pies.

A better phrasing might be “If performing some action would result in at least one Baker increasing their Total pies to a value larger than 20, that action may not be performed.”

And incidentally, I don’t think we really need caps.  There should be enough risks in hoarding (Portal pies, maybe some new mechanics) that you wouldn’t want to anyway.  Plus, having 40 pies is kind of gleeful =D.

quirck:

08-20-2012 18:19:07 UTC

But the Baker can have 20 pies. “A Baker cannot have more than 20 Pies in total. If performing some action would result in at least one Baker having more than 20 Pies, that action may not be performed.”

Also, if some players hoard pies and others actively spend them, then new players might start at a disadvantage, as did scshunt.

GreyWithAnE:

08-20-2012 18:25:22 UTC

Ah, good point, quirck (although I still vote against).

The new players issue is an auxiliary one: All new players will start at a disadvantage no matter what happens with this rule, unless we implement something that specifically gives them a head-start.

Clucky:

08-20-2012 18:39:35 UTC

eh, I guess you’re probably right there. So I’ll switch back to for Still dislike hard caps, seems weird that each flavor gets a soft cap but total is hard (though I get why)