Thursday, June 14, 2012

Here is what happened:

I was talking with people on IRC, and then realized IRC wasn’t gamestate, so I couldn’t technically do that with my throat. I could talk to Oranjer though, because he wasn’t a Time Monk for the purposes of dynastic rules. I then idled, so that I could talk to DN as well pull him in.

After failing the DoV, Oranjer could move to Dynasty 1, and using the fact that some Traits were passive, set moon’s third column to a string.

This caused the “PP (column 1) * Relationship (column 3)” to be zero for all players, so the sum is zero and the protagonist dies. A new meta dynasty beings.

All the rules are still in place though. I thought they would get reset, but apparently not. Its a new dynasty though, so I can unidle =) Nice waste of accomplishing nothing but resetting everyone’s stats.

Comments

ais523:

06-14-2012 08:24:34 UTC

I don’t think this would reset stats either, despite starting a new dynasty.

The current ruleset really doesn’t work as a meta, though (even though the theme does).

ais523:

06-14-2012 08:46:20 UTC

To elaborate: I don’t think any effect has ever reset stats from one dynasty to the next; that’s normally a side effect of rules getting repealed, but if the rules aren’t repealed, the stats aren’t reset either.

Kevan:

06-14-2012 12:09:41 UTC

Agreed. In the absence of any rationale for resetting everyone’s stats to defaults, we should all have the same stats as before, and can continue playing.

Clucky:

06-14-2012 16:50:14 UTC

Its standard that stats get reset when a new dynasty begins. We are all new players in the dynasty. So we all get the new player values. UTD remains the same though.

Kevan:

06-14-2012 17:17:20 UTC

We’re always the same old players. I think it’s only “standard” for player stats to be reset because, as ais523 says, the dynastic rules that define those stats nearly always get blanked. I don’t see that the ruleset supports the blanking of stats that carry over into the next dynasty.

Clucky:

06-14-2012 17:42:07 UTC

So you’re saying if we had a stat “hitpoints” in dynasty X, and then thirty dynasties later also had “hitpoints”, unless there is a “set everyone’s hitpoints to 10” clause (as opposed to just saying “by default hitpoints are 10” in the ruleset) that someone who had 20 hitpoints in dynasty X should still have 20 hitpoints?

Kevan:

06-14-2012 18:27:39 UTC

No, I think that’s a different issue, because hitpoints explicitly stop existing as trackable gamestate as soon as we repeal the rule. In the case of this Metadynasty, though, the rules remain constant and all that’s happening is that we’re changing the name and subtype of the dynasty.

Historically it looks like we had “When a Dynasty has been won, all [Players]’ GNDT stats are reset to zero or blank.” in there for ten dynasties or so until I took it out in 2006. I think I’d still stand by that - gamestate only exists for as long as we track it.

Josh:

06-14-2012 18:46:41 UTC

We also had the persistent “gold"keyword, which changed from dynasty to dynasty like player and emperor and was normalized (to 100, plus or minus 25) with each victory. I think that was in place for most of the early dynasties.

Clucky:

06-14-2012 18:54:15 UTC

Hrm. I guess you are right. I would still argue that everyone is a new player, but the rules just say

“When an Time Monk is unidled, if they went Idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the last legally endowed values it had, if they are still valid. Otherwise (including if a value is invalid, does not exist, or the Time Monk Idled in a different dynasty), the Time Monk is given the default value for new Time Monks, if such a value exists. “

and

“At any given time, each Time Monk occupies a specific dynasty from BlogNomic’s history, which is tracked in the GNDT under “Dynasty” and logged as that Dynasty’s number. This defaults to 100”

So my values should’ve reset, because I didn’t go idle in the seventh meta dynasty, but everyone else’s values should’ve remained the same.

moonroof:

06-14-2012 23:37:26 UTC

I’m glad I could be involved.

Kevan:

06-15-2012 06:33:59 UTC

Ugh, should have checked this more closely at the time, but did Dynasty 1 have any Dynastic Rules at the time when Oranjer used that ruleset? (Dynasties that just have “rules” require the Buddha to post to specify which are which - until that time, Monks are just “subject to the Dynastic Rules”, and no such Rules exist.)

Josh:

06-15-2012 06:56:02 UTC

Actually that rule specifies “may” not “must”.

Kevan:

06-15-2012 11:50:58 UTC

You mean in “In the case of earlier Dynasties, where Core Rules and Dynastic Rules may not be mapped, the Time Buddha may make a post to the Blog detailing which rules in that Dynasty’s are considered Dynastic and while rules are considered Core.”?

I’m not sure if you’re arguing for or against my reading of it, but if the Buddha chooses not to make such a post, then nothing happens. We don’t default to “well, let’s just say these middle ones are dynastic”.