Friday, July 13, 2012

Proposal: Merrit

Timed out. Fails 1-1-1—Clucky

Adminned at 15 Jul 2012 21:27:46 UTC

If there is not a subrule of “Reputation” called “Merit”, create it.

Reword the subrule of “Merit” to say

Each Worker has a number of Merits, tracked in the GNDT, and defaulting to zero. Any Worker with 10 or more Merits can lose 10 Merits to gain 1 Reputation.

Merit can be earned in the following ways:

* Whenever a worker de-shrouds a machine, if he did not earn a Merit either of the last two times he de-shrouded a machine he earns a Merit.
* Whenever a worker causes a Jammed machine to become Fixed, if he did not earn a Merit the last time he caused a Jammed Machine to become Fixed, he earns a Merit.
* Whenever a Broken machine becomes Fixed as a result of the rule “Machine Repair”, the worker who established the Power Link that was removed earns a Merit.

Give each worker X/3 merits, rounded down, where X is the number of machines they have de-shrouded this dynasty.
Give each worker Z/2 merits, rounded down, where Z is the number of Jammed machines they have fixed this dynasty.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

13-07-2012 23:44:56 UTC

Z is hopefully gonna be zero. I can do the work to count who has deshrouded what to count X

Clucky: he/him

13-07-2012 23:51:33 UTC

changes since http://blognomic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Machines&oldid=15033

Moonroof: 6, 42, 47, 84, 97, 8, 29, 10, 70, 82
Clucky: 21, 44, 65, 88, 73, 40
Kops: 86, 35, 37, 2
Quirck: 96, 99, 48, 56

(someone should probably be checking my work)

kops:

13-07-2012 23:52:10 UTC

against

1) Don’t want to track link establishers; links are just there.
2) Not a huge fan of tracking De-shrouds/Unjamming either. If it’s been a while I might not remember.

3) Most important, I really don’t like the retro-activity. I’m glad you’re willing to do the work, but I don’t think it’s well maintained in the GNDT (some people might just roll the die and change it on the wiki without more comments), and it punishes players who weren’t here for the whole dynasty (me included).

4) Not all that important, but I don’t see why we don’t just put merit gaining as an effect of the relevant actions, rather than it’s own rule. (E.g. just append “The Worker then gains 1 merit.” to various rules)

kops:

13-07-2012 23:53:47 UTC

In case it does pass, I also deshrouded 61. Might check others later.

Clucky: he/him

14-07-2012 00:06:57 UTC

like I said, those are only the changes since the timestamp.

Its silly to reward people for work done towards fixing the machine after some arbitrary point and not the work done before hand. Also if we don’t reward deshrouding, we’ll get bad gameplay where people do deshrouding as a last resort but would rather use their actions to actually power machines. Really its a team effort, where doing everything should be encouraged. Just rewarding the final step is silly.

Clucky: he/him

14-07-2012 00:06:57 UTC

like I said, those are only the changes since the timestamp.

Its silly to reward people for work done towards fixing the machine after some arbitrary point and not the work done before hand. Also if we don’t reward deshrouding, we’ll get bad gameplay where people do deshrouding as a last resort but would rather use their actions to actually power machines. Really its a team effort, where doing everything should be encouraged. Just rewarding the final step is silly.

kops:

14-07-2012 00:15:07 UTC

Sorry missed the timestamp.

I agree deshroud should be rewarded, just not like this. An equivalent implementation would be to multiply the merit per rep by 6, award 6 for a repair, 3 for an unjam, and 2 for a deshroud. I would vote for that.

To fix poaching, just split the reward between forming links and repairing.

I really dont like retroactivity still.

Clucky: he/him

14-07-2012 00:20:58 UTC

Forming links isn’t what’s important though…

really like, we have a mechanic for rewarding people for fixing machines. Its called recommendations. I’m not even sure why we’re trying to automate it in the first place. People are just being too stingy about them I guess.

Bucky:

14-07-2012 04:59:44 UTC

imperial

kops:

16-07-2012 01:37:37 UTC

I actually hate the recommendation mechanic as it is right now… from the perspective of Nomic as a game and me as a player (disregarding the meta aspect), recommendations require me to be willing to advance my opponents gamestate at no benefit to myself. There’s no reason for me to want to do this.

Automating recommendations makes much, much more sense.

kops:

16-07-2012 01:38:11 UTC

Oh and if forming links isn’t what’s important, why on earth are you giving all the credit to the Link former in this very proposal?!

Clucky: he/him

16-07-2012 04:27:32 UTC

Because forming links between unactive machines is whats important. Just forming random links accomplishes nothing.