Monday, August 09, 2021

Proposal: Mighty Networks

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Aug 2021 16:35:49 UTC

If Proposal: Highly Illogical was not enacted then this proposal does nothing.

In the rule Clientele, change the first two paragrahs to read as follows:

Workers are in contact with a number of Clients. The Clients that currently exist are publicly tracked, along with their Wants and their Distribution Network.

Each Client has a non-negative number of Wants, selected from the list below; if ever a Client has no Wants then any Worker may randomly select a new Want for that Client. Each Client also has a Distribution Network, which must be one or more Fulfilment Centres. A Client is Satisfied with a Worker if they have fulfilled all of their Wants during the current Cycle, and if that Worker has a Route to a Fulfilment Centre in that Client’s Distribution Network. Once per Cycle, a Worker can Submit a Report and gain 2 Cogs per Client that is Satisfied with them.

Add the following to the list of Wants in the rule Clientele:

- Globalist: The Worker gained a Route to a new Distribution Centre in the previous Cycle
- Luddite: The Worker did not activate a Machine in the previous Cycle

Set the Distribution Networks for Masses and Elite to be Shanker Haulage, and the Distribution Network for Vatican to be SeeClickShip.



09-08-2021 13:25:35 UTC

“Each Client has at least one Want, selected from the list below; if ever a Client has no Want then any Worker may randomly select a new Want for that Client.” doesn’t work – the first part of the sentence forces Clients to always have at least one Want, so the initialisation action can never occur. (The rules would automatically give clients the first Want in alphabetical order, in order to enforce the “has at least one Want” requirement.)

You can fix this simply by allowing Clients to have no Wants, whilst keeping the initialisation algorithm: “Each Client has zero or more Wants”.

Also, a couple of typos: “Luddite” has two “d"s, and “one or more Fulfilment Centre” is missing an “s” at the end.

Finally, a balance point: 2 Cogs is probably too small a reward.

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 13:32:10 UTC

I’m interested in the reward point but don’t think that I should attempt to change it in this proposal.

Thanks for the typos, and the other comment, will fix.

Josh: he/they

09-08-2021 16:09:35 UTC

against sk as highly illogical failed