From the ascension address: “Ground rules (please avoid these so I can avoid vetoes): *Randomness*, actions that don’t sync with the 72 hour direction cycle, anything involving Marco Materazzi.”

Also I think five is to low. If people desire a cap, I’d suggest #Players/2.

[spc] Ah, didn’t realise you were 100% against any form of randomness. I agree that giving players decisions which have random results isn’t very interesting (and that a “gain DICE5 credits” Casino Institution would be annoying), but using randomness to set up a situation for players to react to doesn’t seem anywhere near as bad, in a context where we’re having to react to the consequences of largely-unpredictable auction results anyway.

@Kevan, I actually competely agree about randomness working fine for creating a situation for a player to react to. However, in your scenario, the majority players do not know which institutions are online, thus from their perspective, they are blindly directing resources, hoping that the ones they focus on will be online. Without information, for them it is as if it was random. Perhaps the list of powered institutions should be public?

Admittedly, my idea for the reactor and likewise the courthouse has the same issue - but the targeted nature of those mechanics means that it operates more like an attack than a “one player sees, other players blind” IMHO.

[south] Unless I’ve messed something up or misunderstood the dynasty’s other mechanics, the Institutions only change their Powered/Unpowered status at the start of a Cycle. You’ll always know which Institutions will have Power at the end of the current Cycle, when you submit your Directions for that Cycle. (The list of Powered Institutions is public, because it’s just overwriting the pending, asterisked Active/Inactive status.)

@Kevan, I…. missed that :). In that case, I alter my objection to solely the fact that 5 is far to few.

[south] Fair enough. I don’t know what the ideal number would be, although it should probably stay within 7±2. With only seven or eight Institutions in play, though, 5 doesn’t seem too badly broken for now.

I’ll again nominate players/2 - unwieldiness is an issue, but competitive balance is more importance with these bits.

Perhaps “players/2 or institutions-2, whichever is smaller” to stop it becoming meaningless when (as now) there are more than twice as many players as institutions.

personally, I’d prefer institutions -1, with the reactor giving 5 credits. Would you object if I stole your language to propose as such, or are you planning on taking another stab?

Of course not! This is Nomic. Help yourself.

Graci :)

That was an accidental double-click, not an attempt at emphasis.

 
That was a deliberate double click to emphasize how deferential I am towards spc.

@Kevan, check out my proto which mixes the various ideas - I guess my point is that I feel it would be best to separate the Reactor and a cap on the number of institutions. Though I agree its a good mechanic to be used for a cap, its enough of a game changer that it might be best to let them come into the world in sequence.