Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Just want to make sure

Am I correct in understanding that I should not publish or account the results from cycle 2?

Comments

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-28-2012 14:31:02 UTC

Oh, actually maybe the wording of the Cycle rule saves us. Buried amid all the “gamestate is magically and invisibly updated at midnight” stuff is “The Net should announce which Players Influenced which Institutions”, and the next couple of orders are “Then…”.

This means that the process is currently paused at “The Net should announce”, so the Cycle doesn’t actually end until you post to the blog about it, at which point we Restock, the Cycle ends and a new Cycle begins (with Institutions becoming Powered).

Of course, it’s only a “should”, so it could also be read as “in the next nanosecond after midnight the Net has to post a blog entry, but if he doesn’t we carry on anyway”.

Clucky: HE/HIM

03-28-2012 18:53:00 UTC

Yeah, the “should” isn’t holding up the train if you ask me Kevan. Everything happens at midnight. So we just lost round two. Giving everyone money for round 2 would be silly anyways.

Kevan: HE/HIM

03-30-2012 12:19:30 UTC

So are we just skipping the Cycle 2 results because they couldn’t be anything other than “no Institutions were Powered, therefore no Institutions were Influenced and no bid-losing bonuses were awarded”?

southpointingchariot:

03-30-2012 12:37:51 UTC

@Kevan, yes, the rules ask me to announce “which insitutions were influenced” - there were none. I am not supposed to state what was powered and what bonuses were awarded in this case. Suffice it to say I should not elaborate more ;). But yet, it likely would’ve been good to explicitly state that no institutions were influenced - I do so now.

Josh: HE/HIM

03-30-2012 13:04:29 UTC

Proposal: Y’ know what would have reset them anyway.