Sunday, April 20, 2014

Houston, we have a problem here.

Benzene is about to go idle, and a proposal hasn’t passed for days. No one seems to be doing anything except RaichuKFM and Pizzashark. What now?



21-04-2014 00:26:27 UTC

We can either propose something interesting or propose a metadynasty, which doesn’t really solves anything.


21-04-2014 03:50:43 UTC

I can’t think of anything interesting to propose, so unless somebody else has an idea I would suggest a metadynasty, whatever that is.

Kevan: he/him

21-04-2014 10:20:55 UTC

A metadynasty is a dynasty with no Emperor. We had one last month that drew to a close in part because players weren’t even voting any more, and it looks like a similar thing has happened in this one, where the Emperor exists but isn’t active.

I’d go so far as saying that metadynasties should be considered harmful, at this point. Silence is a valid strategy in online Nomic: if the game stagnates and some players drift away, it becomes easier to force a proposal through, or to simply suggest that it’s time to start again, and hey, maybe I should be the Emperor if there are no objections. Having an Emperor - a player with some social pressure to keep their dynasty alive, and (more significantly) no ability to win themselves - seems like an important counterweight to this.

RaichuKFM: she/her

21-04-2014 16:54:15 UTC

Were stagnations like these fairly common in BlogNomic’s history, or are they a newer development, or does me winning have disastrous consequences for the next Dynasty? (Look at the deaths of the first Dynasty of Skju and the Second Dynasty of RaichuKFM, and how I won the Dynasty before each of them. My First Dynasty turned out okay, though, if a bit grindy.)

Yeah, metadynasties are leaving a bad taste in my mouth lately. It seems to me that what killed this Dynasty was a lack of a clear end goal and a few complicated game mechanics like Electronegativity. There isn’t much to do but make oneself a larger Atom and nothing to indicate that this is a good thing. And then either apathy or lack-of-an-idea-of-what-to-do prevents the posting of Proposals to fix it, I’d imagine.


21-04-2014 21:39:07 UTC

@RaichuKFM: “Were stagnations like these fairly common in BlogNomic’s history, or are they a newer development”

I recall many stagnations in the past, though this recent spate of three in a row is new and worrisome. Then again, BlogNomic has been going so long that just about everything that could happen has happened. I mean, we just had an NPC emperor for the sheer novelty of it.

At this point, I’m ready for anything that isn’t a slow dynasty. Give me flashy abilities, or insane paradoxes, or utter chaos, as long as we don’t have to put the dynasty out of its misery.


22-04-2014 01:49:34 UTC

“Give me flashy abilities, or insane paradoxes, or utter chaos”
K, I’ll give it a shot.


22-04-2014 02:21:41 UTC

I tried to make a proposal that would clean out most of the complex math and put things in a bit of different direction(change everything), so based on the two proposals it’s kind of between a more chaotic version of what we’ve been doing with a clear win state included, and a rewrite of the rules just to see where that goes. I have no opinion on which would be best.


22-04-2014 02:30:36 UTC

First things first(I didn’t wanted to comment this on the proposal because you’d not be able to edit it then): I think you must specify that the numbers are going to be rounded up or down, because I’m not sure the variables are defined as integers.
Also (and I too learned this the hard way), it’s better to post your proposal in a recently opened “Make a New Post”, because it keeps the time it was when you clicked the link, and not the actual time it was posted (your Proposal was posted after mine, but is pending before because of this).


22-04-2014 02:36:33 UTC

Anyway, I don’t think our proposals are mutually exclusive. Mine probably can be safely patched if both passes because I didn’t defined any way to make energy go up or down.
About the “clear win”, it’s just a way to keep players more “tuned” in the game. You can’t be Nuked out if you can log in at least once a day. So if the Dynasty stagnates again, we would already have a way to finish it off and start a new one “naturally”.


22-04-2014 02:42:05 UTC

I think the problem is that people have been making cool sounding ideas not games.In my opinion the biggest thing to ” this recent spate of three in a row” has been the emperors. The dynasties have consistently been cool sounding at first but present no clear path along which to evolve. That isn’t a bad thing if the emperor has a clear idea as to where to go with the dynasty and is going to make proposals to that end but otherwise it ends this way every time.

For instance Josh in his most recent dynasty set up a game right away and made it clear what the main mechanics were to be, and it didn’t end up sputtering out because people had something to actually do.


22-04-2014 02:47:26 UTC

Forcing people to log in as often as possible is not and will never be a good way to increase participation. People will begin to feel that can’t keep up with it and decide it is easier to just not play or to wait for the next dynasty. If you want to keep people “tuned in to the game” then simply make a fun and engaging game for them to play.


22-04-2014 04:36:29 UTC

I’ve modified the proposal so everything should end up as whole numbers now. I do like the general idea of your proposal, but I’m not really on board with the way the Nuked state works. I think it would be best to add either some way that an Atom has to do something to end up in the Nuked state, to avoid people losing just because they were gone for one day, or implement some way to get out of the Nuked state. Also, in the subRule Nuke, you wrote “the Atom has not choose as a Target” when I think you meant to say “the Atom has not been choosen as a Target”


22-04-2014 05:04:02 UTC

I actually meant “chose”. Everytime I wrote “the Atom” in that Rule is supposed to be read as the one with that Energy. So it should mean: 1)a non-Reagent 2)an atom other than the one releasing his charge 3)an atom not nuke(d) 4)an atom that wasn’t a target for this atom before (so you can’t just target the same person forever, until you pass the nuke status)”. Also, that way the formula should work kind of a Russian roulette—you can choose someone to “shoot” at only once, and every “shot” means that the chance of the “bullet” actually be there in the next one is higher.

And you’re right, it does makes sense taking an action to end up Nuked, so I edited it. It now works like “Heat” status from FF.