Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Proposal: Mana Flow

Fails 4-5. — Quirck

Adminned at 12 Sep 2013 13:09:45 UTC

In rule 2.1 “Energy”, replace “New Apprentices start with 5 Energy.” with “New Apprentices start with Energy equal to the sum of each Apprentice’s Mastery of the Arcane Domain.”

In rule 2.6 “Recharging”, replace each instance of “five” with “the sum of each Apprentice’s Mastery of the Arcane Domain”.

Amend in rule 2.3 Spells:

An Apprentice may Craft a Spell by assembling one or more Powers, choosing the necessary Parameters and spending the Cost of the resulting Spell in Energy. The completed Spell has the Effects of the included Powers, with each Parameter substituted by the chosen option. When an Apprentice Crafts a Spell, they must add it to their section of the “Spellbook” wiki page with a name of their choosing, describing the Spell’s Effects and Cost.

to read

An Apprentice may Craft a Spell by assembling one or more Powers, choosing the necessary Parameters and spending the Cost of the resulting Spell in Energy. The completed Spell has the Effects of the included Powers, with each Parameter substituted by the chosen option. When an Apprentice Crafts a Spell, they must add it to their section of the “Spellbook” wiki page with a name of their choosing, describing the Spell’s Effects and Cost. Once per week per level of Mastery of the Arcane Domain, Apprentices may Craft a Spell for one less Energy than it would otherwise take.

If a majority of EVCs on this proposal contain the words “Time is money”, insert ‘Time’ instead of ‘Arcane’ in the previous amendment and amend in rule 2.3 “Spells”:

An Apprentice may Cast a Spell they Know by spending its Cost in Energy and carrying out its Effects in the order they are listed in the Spell’s description.

to read

An Apprentice may Cast a Spell they Know by spending its Cost in Energy and carrying out its Effects in the order they are listed in the Spell’s description. Once per week per level of Mastery of the Arcane Domain, Apprentices may Cast a Spell for one less Energy than they would otherwise (following other restrictions).

Give us more Energy to play with (eventually) while giving those Apprentices who gain Arcane Mastery a slight advantage.  Possibly, also increase the value of the Time Domain.

Comments

Spitemaster:

10-09-2013 18:41:10 UTC

for Time is money.

An explicit vote for the rider.

Sphinx:

10-09-2013 19:36:46 UTC

for
Time is money. I think…

Murphy:

11-09-2013 01:46:53 UTC

against
Might slow things down too much due to reduced Energy supply, depending on how many Apprentices jump on the Arcane bandwagon.

Purplebeard:

11-09-2013 06:57:20 UTC

against Protest vote against EVC clauses.

Kevan: he/him

11-09-2013 08:37:39 UTC

against

Sphinx:

11-09-2013 10:55:07 UTC

Why would it slow down energy supply? Our wizards arcane mastery is 5, so we still get at least five energy, don’t we?

Spitemaster:

11-09-2013 12:03:28 UTC

It’s the SUM of Arcane Masteries.  So if I (for instance) gain one mastery in Arcane, everyone gets one more energy each week.

RaichuKFM: she/her

11-09-2013 12:05:30 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

11-09-2013 18:06:08 UTC

against boo rich get richer

kikar:

11-09-2013 22:07:58 UTC

against I’m for allowing players to get more energy, but I’m not sure if this is the best way to go about it as it punishes players for not mastering the arcane. Two possible alternatives: mana potions or levels that could be bought with energy.

Sphinx:

11-09-2013 22:48:50 UTC

Why “rich get richer”? Players with arcane mastery get to cast spells a little bit cheaper, they don’t get more energy.

Clucky: he/him

11-09-2013 22:57:58 UTC

Oh I misread that. Sure for

RaichuKFM: she/her

12-09-2013 13:12:55 UTC

Bah, there goes my Admin-ing spree. Murphy and kikar are wrong, Purplebeard is being silly, the only one here who might have a legitimate reason for an AGAINST is Kevan, but he didn’t write anything, so can someone plop on another FOR so we can pass this?

Sphinx:

12-09-2013 13:17:18 UTC

Thought that too :s

Kevan: he/him

12-09-2013 13:47:14 UTC

I didn’t like the EVC rider - Arcane Apprentices already have a higher Energy cap, they don’t need cheaper spells as well.

Purplebeard:

12-09-2013 14:02:12 UTC

RaichuKFM: EVC clauses like this one are effectively mini-proposals within actual proposals (circumventing the slot limit), except that they substitute our existing robust voting mechanic with a wonky and loosely defined tally; apart from the absence of vetoes and deferential votes, there is the oft-cited issue that these clauses can be ‘enacted’ with only half a quorum in support. Additionally, they screw with the voting behaviour of Apprentices who support the proposal but dislike the rider: they have to weigh their vote against the possibility of it passing. I will continue to oppose such proposals until someone gives me a reasonable argument in favour of their existence.

But hey, if you want to dismiss my position by calling me silly, that’s cool too.

Sphinx:

12-09-2013 15:10:14 UTC

Alright, that makes sense, I also wondered, why you were against EVC (Not that I’d call you silly, mighty wizard).
Still, I like this idea, so I guess I will propose it myself, without an EVC clause.

quirck: he/him

12-09-2013 16:46:24 UTC

imperial