Friday, May 09, 2008

Proposal: I want a custom weapon!

timed out, final vote 5-3—Yoda
Europe’s influence increases by 2.

Adminned at 11 May 2008 19:31:06 UTC

Change the last line of rule “Weapons” so it reads:

A Weapon may be created or modified only through a successful proposal, within the Success clause of an Evil Operation or by Weapon Research.

Add sub-rule “Research” to“Weapons”:

As a weekly action, a Henchman with an INT of 20 or more may make a Weapon Research (abbr. WR) by creating a Story Post with the text “Weapon Research:” at the beginning of it’s title, followed by the name of the Weapon e intends to create. The story post should go on to describe a single weapon, enumerating all if it’s stats. If the story post defines a valid weapon that doesn’t already exist (ie. there is not another weapon in the SZ with the same name), that Henchman may add it to the SZ, and the new weapon’s Stock stat is set to No.

As a daily action a Henchman with an INT of 15 or more may make a WR Roll, by making a comment to a WR story post and including an INT + GL roll. (A Henchman may make multiple rolls for a single weapon, but each is a daily action). When five or more rolls that equal or exceed 20 have been made on a WR post, any Henchman may set that Weapon’s stock to Yes.

With this we can create more weapons without clogging up the proposal queue.

 

 

Comments

Oze:

05-09-2008 18:46:26 UTC

for

jay:

05-09-2008 19:46:40 UTC

for

dogfish:

05-09-2008 20:19:03 UTC

for

Darknight:

05-09-2008 20:30:53 UTC

for

Yoda:

05-09-2008 20:39:22 UTC

against There is no check for weapon effects.

Say we allow effects to be put on weapons.  Then, someone researches a weapon whose effect states “I win.”  Now all that player has to do is roll more than a 20 five times, equip the weapon, and e wins.

arthexis:

05-09-2008 20:46:22 UTC

But as stated, effects do nothing. So even if such a weapon existed, “Effect” is not a legal stat, it does nothing. Only boons would be defined, and they can only modify attributes and nothing else.

Yoda:

05-09-2008 21:09:04 UTC

That’s why I said once we allow effects to be put on weapons.

I still don’t like the idea that there is no check on weapons.  At least with proposals, we can fail them if they are too powerful or something like that.

Rodlen:

05-10-2008 16:00:46 UTC

for

Ornithopter:

05-11-2008 15:47:05 UTC

against
I meant to vote against this earlier along similar lines as Yoda, but apparently I didn’t?

I don’t really think there’s any problem with “cloging up the proposal queue”. There’s no benefit to it being empty, and since almost every proposal times out before reaching quorum, additional proposals don’t really slow anything down. And really, enacing non-proposal things is additional work for the admins, since they have to check through the whole main thread for them instead of just looking at the list of pending proposals in the sidebar.

Ornithopter:

05-11-2008 15:57:12 UTC

The spelling mistake in the quoted bit above is mine, not Arthexis’s.

jay:

05-11-2008 16:23:19 UTC

against COV this is dangerous and needs a veto.

jay:

05-11-2008 16:24:02 UTC

Except chances are slim the Overlord’s gonna pop in within the next hour.

Yoda:

05-11-2008 17:41:44 UTC

Actually, Ornithopter, it says that any henchman can change the stock to yes.  But the real problem still remains: there is no way to clear these.  If there was a time limit (such as 3 days or a week), I might be more likely to vote for this, since it is highly unlikely that one person can roll 5 lucky rolls in 3-7 days.

jay:

05-11-2008 18:32:07 UTC

You haven’t been on the losing end of a Yahtzee game in a while, have you.

Yoda:

05-11-2008 20:30:33 UTC

I didn’t say it was impossible, but rather highly unlikely.

Yoda:

05-11-2008 20:31:12 UTC

Although it would be impossible if the time limit was 3 days.