I don’t hate this but it doesn’t solve the cellar problem and it puts too much control at Habanero’s discretion; a more transparent, guided selection mechanism would make much more sense to me.

There is the clause “There should be a preference towards reducing the Capacity of locations that are over capacity” that I added a bit after proposing this. There shouldn’t be many locations at once that would fit the bill.

My guess is that there would usually be none; that’s the problem. It’s too weak a steer.

Would rather see location pulldown decision put into the hands of the players (which it already has been to some extent with the Pressure Bomb), if we think we need it.

Surely if there’s no locations that are over-capacity, then your proposal to connect the cellar to the outside would also do nothing?

Plus, this is still needed because the building will soon be able to fit literally everyone without conflict.

This last comment was @Josh

I agree that my proposal to make the cellar linked directly to the outside is minimal, which is why Kevan’s theatrics and your vote are so peculiar to me.

I thought we were pulling on the “it puts too much control at Habanero’s discretion; a more transparent, guided selection mechanism would make much more sense to me” conversation thread; my response was in that context, as we are self-evidently fiddling while the cellar burns.

A fine first pass and something like this is needed but the hand is too light on the tiller and the undirected outcome is too unpredictable.

Hm. Would both of you be happy enough if I were to make it voted for similar to the Rejected Goals field? You pick which one you want the capacity reduced for, with a few tiebreakers thrown in.

Once I have a free slot.

At that point, why not just integrate it into the Goals mechanic? Seems silly to have a parallel mechanical structure aimed at the same thing.

, though I do think the capacity limit needs to be lowered.