Monday, April 22, 2019

Proposal: Pro Trade but Anti-Trust

Self-Killed. Failed by Derrick.

Adminned at 23 Apr 2019 11:40:26 UTC

Add a sub rule to “Resources named “Deals”:

A contractor may propose a “Deal” by making a story post listing a specific amount funds and/or resources they would like to trade for a specific number of funds and/or resources, and a contractor they would like to trade with. If the contractor listed in the post makes a “FOR” comment on the post, the listed amounts of funds and resources are exchanged. If the Great Eccentric feels the deal is non-competative, he may make a comment containing the words “ANTI-TRUST” and reduce the funds of either or both contractors in the deal by an amount not to exceed the total count of funds and resources in the trade

I feel like swapping resources around is very much an in-theme mechanic for this dynasty. I also feel like simply teaming up to make it so one contractor wins is not, so this gives the great eccentric the ability to penalize one-sided trades. I promise to only use this ability to deter noncompetitive trading.



22-04-2019 14:11:22 UTC

Is it supposed to say “either or both”?

derrick: he/him

22-04-2019 14:22:49 UTC

Yes it is and now it does.

Kevan: he/him

22-04-2019 16:05:13 UTC

against The antitrust clause is too subjective. If Derrick has a clear idea of what would and wouldn’t count, let’s make it a rule.

derrick: he/him

22-04-2019 18:26:13 UTC

The idea is to stop transfers that aren’t made with both contractors intending to win via ROI. This is somewhat objective in nature. Trades with zero on one side are easy to ban, but its easy enough to get around that ban by paying $5B for a single resource. On the other hand, I could see someone trying to corner the market on a resource and charging large amounts for it, and its hard to distinguish between that context (and several others) and someone who is trading for benefits outside of the dynasty.

I suppose we could try and pass a ban on such behavior. It wouldn’t be terribly enforceable, but it may be enough.


23-04-2019 04:43:25 UTC

If this dynasty doesn’t peter out, I wouldn’t find it as fun to have someone win in a similar manner as derrick did the last dynasty.
This rule doesn’t prevent a collaboration like derrick and I did. The funds are exchanged regardless of derrick’s input, so if victory can be achieved within the span of 5 minutes, the fact that derrick can reduce the trader’s funds later is irrelevant.
That said, if there were a more limited way of exchanging resources that balances player’s working together versus lone contractors I’d vote for it.

Kevan: he/him

23-04-2019 10:05:32 UTC

Might work to allow players to start their own Resource auctions: winner removes the Resources from the auctioneer, and pays them the Funds.

derrick: he/him

23-04-2019 11:39:38 UTC


So far this dynasty doesn’t have a win condition, it has a scoring mechanic for when the game ends. As long as you don’t do this right as the game ends, I’ll have plenty of time.

That said, the auction method is both an elegant solution and on theme.

against self-killed