Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Proposal: One may lose what he gained

fails 3-1—Clucky

Adminned at 20 Jul 2012 10:49:51 UTC

Reword the subrule “Merit” in the following way:

Each Worker has a number of Merits, tracked in the GNDT, and defaulting to zero. Any Worker with 10 or more Merits may lose 10 Merits to gain 1 Reputation. When a Worker has negative amount of Merits, that Worker must lose one Reputation and add ten to his Merits.

A Worker may gain 1 Merit each time he:
* establishes a Power Link that does not create new cycles;
* makes Broken or Jammed machine Repaired.

A Worker must lose 1 Merit each time he:
* establishes a Power Link that creates at least one new cycle.


I think dividing gaining Merit for Machine Repair into gain for establishing a link and gain for the actual Repair partially solves the problem of using links established by other players and effectively halves the required effort to increase reputation. I’m also thinking on how to lose Merits due to Jamming machines, but I can’t find suitable solution because Jamming due to the cycles is optional.



17-07-2012 21:37:42 UTC

for Looks good to me.


17-07-2012 21:39:08 UTC

for I’d like it slightly better if you don’t get merit for establishing links between two repaired machines, but this is good enough.

Also, to preempt a potential CfJ, I’m interpreting cycles in the current rule set to be directed cycles only. I don’t really see undirected cycles being possible interpretation but does anyone disagree?

Clucky: he/him

17-07-2012 21:55:19 UTC

against you shouldn’t be rewarded for just randomly establishing power links. they do no good unless they have a purpose. this could theoretically punish someone for repairing a machine, simply because they have to form a cycle, while rewarding the people who set up the almost cycle when they are really the ones who should be punished.

quirck: he/him

17-07-2012 22:02:01 UTC

When he creates a cycle, well, he does lose 1 Merit as a result of this proposal, but then he immediately regains it since he Repairs a Machine, moreover, he can go through the whole cycle and Repair everything, thus gaining (N-1) Merits where N is the length of the cycle.


17-07-2012 22:05:33 UTC

Re Clucky: From a game flavor standpoint, all pairs of machines can be operated, we just don’t know what they do yet. Therefore, all power links have a “purpose” (unless its to/from a jammed machine).

Clucky: he/him

18-07-2012 18:11:21 UTC

right, but that is not enough of a purpose to warrant one merit. You have, assuming 50 gerunds and 50 nouns, a 1/2 chance of establishing a link any try so a 7/8 chance of getting a link in 3 tries, so in 5 actions that’s about 4 merit a day. just by grinding. really just seems too much to me.


18-07-2012 18:16:37 UTC

against CoV per Clucky


18-07-2012 21:27:33 UTC

against per Clucky’s math.

Consider reproposing with the added requirement that the link must be TO a broken machine that does not already have an incoming link. This would restrict it to 1 merit per machine.

quirck: he/him

18-07-2012 21:31:52 UTC

kops, you may propose it too, in the way you like. I’m out of slots for now


18-07-2012 22:38:28 UTC

Eh, I have other stuff to propose. Starting with figuring out why the retaining power links one got shot down which I still don’t understand…

Clucky: he/him

18-07-2012 23:47:54 UTC

because people didn’t like it?

Also while I didn’t realize it at the time, retaining power links is a terrible idea when combined with the stupid merit mechanic:

Get rioting and rebel next to each other. Establish a rioting->rebel power link, make sure rioting is not adjacent and there are not any accidental activation you can make near by. you can do rioting rebel operation as much as you want, breaking the rebel machine then repairing it without removing the link each time until you have as much reputation as you want.

Clucky: he/him

18-07-2012 23:51:22 UTC

kinda actually wish I had noticed that though… couple it with the ‘reputation level controls how much quota you get’ and as long as your lucky in setting it up, I could’ve upped my reputation to like 1000, then established all the links before anyone else could also execute the loophole. would’ve been risky though, someone else might’ve pulled it off before me…


19-07-2012 00:51:22 UTC

Nobody has actually given a sane reason as to why the link should be removed when you repair a machine. In its current state the operations rule is pretty much useless, and that proposal would at least make a step towards being able to actually operate.

Obviously the merit rule would need to be amended in conjunction per above, but the idea is sound.

Is there a more appropriate forum for this discussion? I don’t have any other proposals off the top of my head aside from reproposing the previous one with a merit fix.

Clucky: he/him

19-07-2012 02:37:45 UTC

thanks for the not-so-subtle ad hominem attack. Nice to know we’re all friends here. Last I checked, people are not required to give reasons why they vote against a proposal.


19-07-2012 05:05:16 UTC

Eh didn’t mean it that way, ‘sane’ was obviously the wrong word. ‘Well-defended’ would have been better. You’re the only person keeping this game interesting right now :)

And no, they’re not required to, but it’d sure as hell be nice to hear some constructive feedback instead of just a red X.