Friday, May 24, 2019

Proposal: Health and Unsafety

popular 5-0 with 1 def enacted by card

Adminned at 25 May 2019 06:17:33 UTC

Replace “If an Architect’s Site has been deemed Unsafe after being Monitored, and the Site was Unsafe prior to that action, then that Architect (or the Supervisor) must Evacuate their Site by removing any and all Quarters Modules present, making the squares they occupied empty. If this has not been done in 48 hours, any Architect may do so, and the name of the Architect whose Site was evacuated shall be moved to the end of the Bidding Queue.” with:-

If an Architect’s Site is Unsafe, any Architect may Evacuate it by removing any and all Quarters Modules from that Site, making the squares they occupied empty.

Replace “If an Architect’s statistics have not been Monitored in the past 24 hours, any Architect may do so by” with “Any Architect may Monitor any Architect’s statistics at any time, by”.

Remove “An Architect’s statistics may not be Monitored if the state of their Site (i.e. Maintained Modules have been added, moved, etc.) has not changed since they were last Monitored.”

Trimming back some Monitoring clauses that seem unnecessary. I can’t see a need for the Unsafe check to immediately follow Monitoring, or for Evacuation to be applied by the owner. The 24 hour limit also seems like a superfluous bit of timing play, and opens up some odd tricks (if a player knows that adding a Block will set their moonbase on fire, they can Monitor their own site five seconds before dropping the Block, in the hope that they’ll be able to place another drop before the 24 hours expires).

The “may not be Monitored [if the Site] has not changed” line also looks unnecessary (if the Site hasn’t changed, Monitoring it again won’t change anything anyway) and will only discourage players from Monitoring each other if they have to comb through GNDT logs and the wiki edit history to see whether a Monitoring action would be legal.

Comments

ubq323:

05-24-2019 10:50:20 UTC

for

derrick:

05-24-2019 11:11:16 UTC

for

naught:

05-24-2019 13:30:02 UTC

imperial  The reason I had those Monitoring clauses in place (especially the one this proposal removes) is because originally I wanted there to be a somewhat harsh punishment for not following the “OSHA guidelines” (this happens very often in real life, where site managers are given a chance to fix their mistakes else they get shut down). I didn’t, however, want that punishment to ruin the game for somebody if they made a slight math error, so I gave them time to fix it.

I don’t know how harsh removing only Quarters modules (with no time to fix it if you make a mistake) is versus tearing down the site, so I’ll see how the vote turns out.

Kevan:

05-24-2019 13:48:09 UTC

That’s a fair idea, maybe we should find some other way to do that. (I did wonder if Quarters could just be changed to something else - a lowercase Q - and changed back when the Architect’s moonbase was safe again.)

This proposal doesn’t alter the Quarters/whole-site teardown mechanic, unless I’ve written something wrongly.

Farsight:

05-24-2019 15:03:41 UTC

Perhaps we could have a rule that says something like:

“If a Site is safe, the Quarters are Inhabited; if a Site is deemed Unsafe, the Quarters are evacuated and become Uninhabited.”

That would allow the Safe/Unsafe mechanic to do something meaningful, but wouldn’t be too destructive. What do you think?

naught:

05-24-2019 15:55:10 UTC

[Farsight] Perhaps, though I don’t see a reason to enact such a rule unless this one turns out to not work so well for gameplay.

[Kevan] It doesn’t alter much; really, the only difference is that this proposal removes the delay between Monitoring actions if a site is Unsafe. (The way the rules stand currently, an Architect has some time to fix their site before evacuating because other Architects can’t perform a second Monitoring until they’ve added a block. This proposal removes that delay, meaning any Unsafe site will have to evac immediately. I’m not a fan of that, but I can live with it if the people will it.)

Kevan:

05-24-2019 15:57:45 UTC

[Farsight] I think it depends what the Uninhabited state does. If it’s something that affects a player’s actions, making it an automatic and invisible state could make the game more of a slog to play, as you’d have to do some maths to double-check your Safety every time you wanted to take a relevant action. (Worse, a player who wasn’t paying attention might not realise that their Quarters were now considered Uninhabited, and play on regardless.)

If Unsafety is a bad thing for a player, I think it’s a useful division of labour to put the onus of checking onto their opponents, and to require some kind of gamestate change to show that it’s happened. That way the affected player just has to quickly check that gamestate before taking actions.

card:

05-25-2019 05:59:24 UTC

for