Sunday, May 06, 2012

Proposal: One Extra Cycle (fixed)

Times out and fails 2-4 ~ southpointingchariot

Adminned at 08 May 2012 11:49:27 UTC

If the Ruleset contains the text:

Otherwise, a Player will be chosen from the group of Players who are all tied for the most Power in the following manner and that chosen Player has achieved victory: The Player with the most Credits is chosen, if a tie remains choose the Player with the most Marines (from those tied for Power and Credits), and if a tie remains choose a Player with the most Councilmen (from those tied for Power, Marines and Credits), if a tie still the Net shall choose the Player (from tied for everything). In any of these cases, the Net should post to the blog announcing the choice.

then remove that text.

In the rule “Cycles”, replace “of May 2012” with “of May 2012, and every three days after that while the Dynasty continues”.

In the rule “Cycle Resolution”, replace:

If each claim made by the player who influenced the Public last Cycle in their Control message was accurate, or if this is the final Cycle of the Dynasty:

with:

If each claim made by the player who influenced the Public last Cycle in their Control message was accurate, or if this Cycle began on or later than the 24th of May 2012:

Fixing the broken quote.

posted by Cpt_Koen at 06 May 2012 12:39:26 UTC Comments (8)

Comments

Murphy:

06-05-2012 14:49:46 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

06-05-2012 17:07:51 UTC

against Still dumb. Tiebreakers are not the end of the world.

Kevan: he/him

06-05-2012 21:36:21 UTC

against Pretty much just makes it a Marine-based “who can influence the Mine next Cycle” tie-breaker instead.

Josh: Mastermind he/they

06-05-2012 21:44:14 UTC

against

Cpt_Koen:

06-05-2012 21:55:51 UTC

<Clucky> “Because credits are the “base unit” of currency. you convert them into other stuff. Having the most credits means your most set to go forward. If someone gets the same amount of power while keeping more credits they clearly played better and would be all set to win if the dynasty continued.”

Credits are indeed the base in a long-term strategy. But one credit is clearly worth a lot less than one marine.
And you pretty much made my point: why arbitrarily decide that the Player with the most Credits wins, instead of effectively continuing the dynasty for just one cycle to see who really would win?
One more cycle is not any more “the end of the world” than tiebreakers.

Kevan: Yes, the Mine is indeed worth five power. Is that a problem? Besides, this would mean Institutions like the Fleet, the Legion, the Rebels, the Courthouse or the Reactor can still be useful in the last Cycle, for a Player who would correctly anticipate a Power tie.

Clucky: he/him

06-05-2012 22:13:00 UTC

The idea is that the game is over and we need to determine a winner. “Most money” is a fairly common tie breaker. “One more cycle” is potentially un-ending.

I fully understand why you don’t want credits to be the tie breaker - you are near broke. Makes sense for you to be against it, I just think having a tiebreaker is a cleaner way of wrapping up a dynasty.

Cpt_Koen:

07-05-2012 14:46:47 UTC

It is definitely not potentially unending, unless tying Players purposefully stop influencing Institutions.
And yes, I have almost no credits, but I do believe waiting one cycle to see who would actually win (in the unlikely case that there is a tie) is much cleaner than an arbitrary tie breaker.

“Most money” is indeed a fairly common tie breaker - in games where money is the only thing you own beside victory points. I see no reason why Credits would be better than Marines here, and I would actually prefer a tiebreaker depending on Power and Councilmen (for instance, in case of a tie, the player with the most councilmen loses his bonus… or the player with the second most councilmen wins half the bonus… or something.), even though it would probably not be favourable to me.

southpointingchariot:

08-05-2012 04:00:53 UTC

against I prefer a hard end.