Sunday, June 24, 2007

Proposal: More Daemons

S-K.—CHronos

Adminned at 26 Jun 2007 09:34:38 UTC

Rewrite rule Daemons, so it reads:

A Corporation may, in the interest of serving their stockholders, summon Daemons to help them compete in our increasingly global economy. A Corporation’s Daemons are tracked by means of a list in the GNDT, which should contain either “(none)” or a list with the names of the Daemons they currently employ. Each name of Daemon is named and described in a subrule to this rule.

To summon a Daemon, the Corporation simply changes their Daemon option to include a given name, then pays that Daemon’s Summoning Cost in Souls. If they already employ any Daemons at that time, the cost for the new Daemon is doubled once for each Daemon that Corporation already employs. No Corporation may summon Daemons more than often.

As with Products and Production Rights, Daemons are covered by Naming Rights; a Corporation may only summon a Daemon whose Naming Rights they own, or whose Naming Rights are Public Knowledge.

Unless otherwise stated, each time the Government Advances Time, each Corporation that employs a Daemon loses one Soul for the first Daemon they employ, 2 for the second, 4 for the third, and so on, doubling the cost for each additional Daemon they employ. If the Corporation has insufficient Souls to meet this demand (known as the Maintenance Cost), their Daemon is set to “(none)” and their Cash is set to $1M less than their Credit Limit, rendering them Bankrupt.

At any time, a Corporation may release a Daemon they employ, by paying the cost in Souls they would pay to Summon that Daemon and deleting said Daemon from their list in the GNDT.

Adjust the GNDT accordingly.

posted by ChronosPhaenon at 24 Jun 2007 19:08:01 UTC Comments (5)

Comments

Brendan: he/him

24-06-2007 19:32:59 UTC

“No Corporation may summon Daemons more than often” makes it sound like you can summon a bunch of Daemons once a day, as long as you do them all together—is that intentional?

Also, this makes Mephistopheles a little tricky, but otherwise I’m not terribly opposed to it.

Brendan: he/him

26-06-2007 12:44:41 UTC

against I’ve decided I don’t like this with the current wording.  In theory, if I wanted to get all three existing Daemons under this rule, I’d have to follow this sequence:

1) Pay 4 Souls for Mephistopheles, wait until the next day.
2) Pay (3 x 2) 6 Souls for Dimurgos, wait until the next day.
3) Pay (2 x 2 x 2) 8 Souls for Astaroth.

Total cost:  2 days, 18 Souls.

But under the wording as it stands, I could change my Daemon field to include all three simultaneously.  Since I didn’t “already employ” a Daemon at that time, I’d only pay 9 Souls, and be done instantly.

I would vote for this if it included a provision that Daemons must be summoned individually, and clarified how it works with Mephistopheles.

Brendan: he/him

26-06-2007 13:11:07 UTC

Also, in the last paragraph, “by paying the cost in Souls they would pay to Summon that Daemon” is unclear—if I have three Daemons and I want to unsummon Mephistopheles, do I pay 4 Souls or 4x2x2 Souls?  The phraing should probably just be “paying that Daemon’s Summoning Cost.”

Kevan: he/him

26-06-2007 13:21:52 UTC

against

ChronosPhaenon:

26-06-2007 16:32:02 UTC

against S-K. Will repropose.