Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Proposal: One man’s trash is another man’s turtle shell

reached quorum 6-1 enacted by card

Adminned at 25 Jan 2018 01:58:38 UTC

Add the following as a Craction in the “Crates” section:

If a resident is the last to take an item from the crate, they may also obtain the empty crate itself, as a supply in any slot, as a Craction. This can happen once per crate.

Add the following as a Supply:

Empty Crate: When worn in the torso a resident has a damage reduction of 1 to any torso related injury. The resident also has a damage reduction of 1 against all attacks from an attacker with a lower alertness value.

Modify the first two bullet points under “Crates” to the following:

A Resident (the “Recipient”) may take an item from a Crate by posting a comment to its post announcing their choice, but only if:-

The item is in that Crate, or in the event that there are no items in the crate an Empty Crate is obtainable only once per crate for the last person to take an item from the crate.
The Recipient has not already taken an item from that Crate and the item being received is not the Empty Crate.

 

This could help out underdogs / spice things up a little? I’m not sure if this should have been a damage reduction or a health bonus, or maybe a new defense stat is in order, but I compromised on a conditional damage reduction. I hope these crates are big enough to fit people in. I’m considering alertness as speed, as in, having time to curl up inside your crate before the attacker can grab it. That alertness superiority thing may be best suited to a more general combat rule.

Comments

card:

24-01-2018 00:41:15 UTC

You may want to specify that the Empty Crate don’t come as a supply inside Crates.
Also since the only people who can get these Empty Crates have lower or equal alertness to everyone else, the crate is initially less useful than it makes itself out to be.

samzeman:

24-01-2018 00:45:01 UTC

^ That’s true, and I’ll try to specify that a little more.

I’m hoping someone who comes last could get a few other catchup methods which would make the empty crate a better item, or otherwise gift one to a higher-alertness player in return for a more powerful item (in their situation)

Madrid:

24-01-2018 00:49:27 UTC

“Underdogs” do not exist since all of our numbers are just frills. Our high numbers are just excuses to try to persuade others to give us a win via a proposal for such, but they don’t have to accept.

But I find the Empty Crate thing hilarious so, this is a frill I approve of adding.

Greentick.

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2018 08:52:43 UTC

There’s still nothing here to stop Empty Crates from being generated when I roll for Crate contents, is there?

for Good first proposal. A bit confusing that we already have things which are “Empty Crates”, and it might be worth renaming this one to “Fibreboard” or something, but I don’t think this causes any problems.

I’m not sure what Cuddlebeam’s “frills to persuade others to propose to win” theory is about, but this seems to be a personal theory they invented recently rather than how anyone else plays Nomic.

Kevan: he/him

24-01-2018 11:01:39 UTC

imperial Actually, abstaining - it should be up to the Residents whether they want this item in the game, and potentially making a high-Alertness player immune to Crowbars.

card:

24-01-2018 14:04:57 UTC

for

Axemabaro:

24-01-2018 14:30:47 UTC

for

samzeman:

24-01-2018 14:46:26 UTC

@kevan hmm yeah to stop it being generated in crates it may need to be considered as something other than a supply, and just an item, if that makes sense. is there room in the system for acquiring items through different means than randomly generated?

Madrid:

24-01-2018 15:32:09 UTC

for

Madrid:

24-01-2018 15:37:04 UTC

Also @Kevan: It’s your own theory “Fool’s Gold”, just explained differently.

Our high numbers or whatever don’t matter, because they could just be Fool’s Gold and people can just not vote in favor of proposals which would ultimately make it matter for the win. So, what high number DOES matter? Whichever is advantageous to the majority’s interests, really. Which make them just frills to try to persuade with, they have no real power without it.

Am I incorrect?

card:

24-01-2018 16:03:55 UTC

To say that everything before the “victory condition” proposal are “frills” and don’t matter is unobservant of you.

Madrid:

24-01-2018 16:18:28 UTC

And to say that is unobservant of you, card.

But anyways, I’m up for hearing your arguments for your claim if you’d like.

pokes:

24-01-2018 21:41:05 UTC

for

Diabecko:

24-01-2018 23:41:05 UTC

for
If someone were to propose a victory condition stating “the last Resident to die wins” and someone else proposes “the first Resident to die wins”, I’m fairly sure there would be a psychological bias towards the first proposal, even for players that might be in a better position to win the second version, because the second version removes a bit of the in-world logic in favour of pure number mechanics, taking away some of the fun. No ? I know I would.

Diabecko:

24-01-2018 23:49:18 UTC

I take back what I just said. The absurdity of finding ways to get killed would be fun. Bad example.