Friday, October 21, 2011

invasion idea

Throwing this out here as a concept. Let me know if there are any obvious errors and ill propose it tonight after work.

Repeal all Dynastic Rules.

Create a new dynastic rule “Factions” with the text:

Each player has a trait Faction which is tracked in the GDNT. At any time a player may change their Faction in the GDNT to any string of characters that is less than 10 characters long.  A player is considered a member of that Faction.

Create a subrule of the rule Factions “Leaders” with the text:

Each player has a trait Leader which is is tracked in the GDNT and is either Yes or No.  If a player changes their faction to a faction that is currently held by no other player, that player may change their Leader to Yes, that player is considered the leader of their Faction.

A leader of a Faction may at any time transfer leadership of their Faction to another member of ther Faction by changing their Leader to no and that player’s Leader to yes.

If a player changes their Faction to match that of another player, their Leadership is set to No.

Set each active player’s Faction to Blognomic.
Set each active plater’s Leader to No.

Comments

ais523:

21-10-2011 13:34:26 UTC

Wouldn’t the repeal of all dynastic rules deplayerise Agora, assuming it’s a player? I think it’s probably better if everyone proposes on the theme they want, and we let the rulesets fight it out.

The concept’s not bad, although I suspect the optimal strategy for winning the dynasty will be a cross-faction alliance, as usual when there are factions.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 13:37:16 UTC

Oh right. Okay then I can exclude the rule that makes agora a player, as well as set agoras faction to agora and make it the leader?

The dynastic repeal was because the previous theme still seems to be in the rules and would interfere with gameplay.

Prince Anduril:

21-10-2011 13:40:14 UTC

Not sure about sacrificing the dynasty. As it’s unofficial guardian, I feel I should defend it at least.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 13:45:48 UTC

Well if people are interested in playing it still then great, but the impression I got was that it stagnated.

ais523:

21-10-2011 13:50:19 UTC

I think I was the only person actually trying. Pretty much any Blognomicker could more or less trivially have got 3 Acclaim over the first 2 weeks. Only I did, and I wasn’t even paying much attention (just grinding on weekends, mostly).

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 13:53:51 UTC

Secondary idea to couple with this. Make imp votes follow faction leader over the emperor.

ais523:

21-10-2011 14:02:34 UTC

I like.

Perhaps we should just propose to this theme no matter what ends up happening, if the dynasty ends? It wouldn’t massively conflict with a meta, nor with an Agoran Dynasty, nor with a multi-faction Rodlenised idea.

southpointingchariot:

21-10-2011 14:06:00 UTC

I think ais got it right there. Personally, I wonder if having say 2 set factions might not be wiser. Or at least have a minimum number of players for a “real” faction. I could see this dissolving without that.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 14:06:12 UTC

I like that idea. The key then is to come with actual gameplay behind it. Last time the faction game didn’t really have anything to play.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 14:07:28 UTC

Thought about limiting factions but that makes things less,fluid and more forced. Allowing unlimited factions let’s you sort people around and new things to develop.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 14:10:26 UTC

Could someone uniform me in GDNT?

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 14:14:27 UTC

Unidle stupid auto correct

Murphy:

21-10-2011 14:30:25 UTC

for  arrow

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 14:31:48 UTC

I appreciate the support but we are discussing the idea and potential loopholes and phrasing issues.

southpointingchariot:

21-10-2011 15:01:28 UTC

My concern about limiting factions is that in the past these mechanisms have tended to lead to either everyone joining one group or creating their own. If any incentive exists which encourages players to lead a faction, it will almost always be easier to create your own. Counter incentives might exist, but if I’m wrong, and reasonable sized groups emerge naturally, it’s just redundant. I know this a bit more “social engineering” than some might like, I’m just trying to look for potential scams.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 15:04:20 UTC

The way I see it working is the eventual win condition is to be the leader of a larger faction.  Obviously make it more than that. Perhaps instead of largest its the faction with the most points amongst its members.

eelpout:

21-10-2011 15:22:04 UTC

A good way is to limit factions without a hard upper limit is by a minimum size (say no fewer than x% of quorum to be considered a faction).  Something else good is factional powers/abilities that scale nonlinearly with faction size, yet top out so it’s not beneficial to form one big faction.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 15:25:45 UTC

Limiting faction size with a minimum would make it impossible to make new factions.

Pavitra:

21-10-2011 15:30:06 UTC

Don’t forget to change the flavor keywords in the core rules.

eelpout:

21-10-2011 15:48:57 UTC

The mechanism can be something like “When an ‘Post of Intent to Form a Faction’ receives X invited Arrows, the faction is formed with those voters.” (an “invited” arrow is one where the post lists a set of voters allowed to opt in).

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 15:58:21 UTC

That forces clutter to the Nomic page. I’d rather the factions be done through GDNT to prevent it from exploding.

Amnistar: he/him

21-10-2011 16:19:44 UTC

Some adjustments. Changed leader to role and made it member or leader. Put in a rule to default unidled and new members to members of blognomic.