Monday, March 22, 2010

Proposal: Rationalising numbers

Self-killed. Josh

Adminned at 24 Mar 2010 02:54:28 UTC

Change rule 2.2.19 so that it reads as follows:

A Commoner, who owns an Invention with this Part, counts as two Commoners when comparing the number of Raiders to the Guard Level of the Royal treasury

If rule 2.4 includes a bullet entitled Raiding Castle, change its effect to read as follows:

Effects: A Commoner who owns a Raiding Castle counts as five Commoners when comparing the number of Raiders to the Guard Level of the Royal treasury. This effect takes precedence over the effect of Armour.

Add the following to the end of rule 2.2, before any subrules:

The effect of multiple iterations of the same part is never cumulative.

Remove the last line from subrule 2.2.4.



03-22-2010 20:40:26 UTC



03-22-2010 21:54:46 UTC

Not sure if the first part of your proposal makes armoured raiders get the same share as non armoured ones or not


03-22-2010 22:16:14 UTC

against  per Put


03-22-2010 23:08:08 UTC

And the cumulative part is broken because of the Part “Storage Drawer”...


03-23-2010 07:46:54 UTC

Storage Drawer doesn’t cumulate - each one targets a different resource.

And the first part of the proposal definitely means that those with Armour get the same share as the rest.


03-23-2010 10:04:25 UTC

imperial I’m a bit uncomfortable with “multiple iterations”, which I can imagine a future Part being tripped up by. We should just reword things like the Precision Lens to “When Inventing something, if a Commoner owns any Inventions with a Precision Lens…”


03-23-2010 11:42:47 UTC

against because it means that building armour doesn’t increase your share, thus removing much of the incentive to build it.


03-23-2010 11:43:09 UTC

And also per Kevan’s comments.


03-23-2010 13:07:28 UTC

@ ais - what about the possibility of actually successfully completing a raid? I’ve built armor myself, now, and would have done so had there been no extra incentive. I’m more worried that those without armor now lack an incentive to participate. They face equal punishment for failure but a reduced reward for success.


03-23-2010 13:11:34 UTC

To elaborate - I don’t mind whether armour confers extra reward for extra risk, or equal reward for equal risk, but allowing it to confer estra reward for no extra risk seems arbitrary and unfair.


03-23-2010 14:25:16 UTC

Hmm, interesting… the intention at least with my armoured-workshop proposal was that armouring your workshop was sufficiently expensive that that was the risk, but I see your point now. CoV imperial, although I still dislike the “cumulative” fix, because it’s unclear what it does.


03-23-2010 14:32:17 UTC

That’s aimed more at the cat basket. I find it faintly ridiculous that a pair of kittens and a thermometer is effectively almost negating the power requirement of my two very expensive machines.

Given that a) there’s currently no good reason not to use a governing armature, and b) there’s currently no good reason not to add a cat basket if you do have a governing armature, and c) between Purplebeard and I we’ve more or less guaranteed that most players will have the resource to build whatever they like most of the time… It seems to be a mechanism by which the rich get richer, and I hate those.


03-23-2010 16:06:35 UTC

The kitten repair kit isn’t cumulative at current; I was wondering why you’d built two. (Actually, looking at the rule, it’s ambiguous exactly the same way the precision lens is. The intended meaning is that if you have a way to fix your kitten, you get an extra 30 coal per week. Two ways to fix your kitten don’t help more than one, either flavourwise or ruleswise, but it depends on whether “commoner” or “invention” is the subject in the rule.)


03-23-2010 17:06:29 UTC

@ais - that’s going to be a CfJ, then, because the current wording in no way excludes or prevents cumulative effect :) There is no rule for “kitten”; all there is is a Kitten Repair and Recharge Kit, which gains me 30 coal when I scavenge.


03-23-2010 17:15:15 UTC

@Josh: Seems fairly cut and dried to me; “A Commoner who owns an Invention with a Kitten Repair and Recharge Kit may gain 30 extra Coal whenever he Scavenges.” is saying “A Commoner who [fits this criterion] may gain 30 extra Coal whenever he Scavenges.”, and I can’t see how it could be read as “A Commoner who [fits this criterion] may gain 30 extra Coal per Part of this type whenever he Scavenges.” Either you are “a Commoner who owns an Invention with a Kitten Repair and Recharge Kit” or you aren’t.

Would be interested to see a CfJ on this, though.


03-23-2010 17:20:02 UTC

@Josh: the kit doesn’t gain you 30 coal while you scavenge; there’s a rule that if you have a kit, when you scavenge you gain 30 coal. There’s a difference (two kits providing coal once each vs. one rule providing coal once).


03-23-2010 17:25:34 UTC

CoV imperial


03-23-2010 19:00:09 UTC

@ Kevan, ais - that’s an awfully broad interpretation based on somewhat ambiguous wording. It also nullifies the need for the qualifications added to the end of the Precision Lens subrule, which should be covered on the same grounds - which makes me wonder why you were both in favour of it.

When you contrast this with the Thermometer - which is explicit and unambiguous about the effect of the part and specifically disallows repeated accumulations of the same bonus - I think that the case for categorical statements in either direction is predicated on extremely flimsy logic.

That’s what this proposal is trying to achieve, after all - a straightforward and indisputable clarity. It’s not like future proposals can’t amend or overrule it if necessary, after all.


03-23-2010 19:46:22 UTC

I don’t remember being particularly in favour of adding qualifications to the Precision Lens - I didn’t vote on this one as I was out of town over the weekend, and I voted with no comment on the rewording so that it could reach quorum and I could enact it. It does seem like the same issue; it doesn’t matter whether you write the sentence “a noun who is adjective may verb” once or a hundred times - you can either verb, or you can’t.

I’ve no problem with rewording both of those parts, but a catch-all “The effect of multiple iterations of the same part is never cumulative.” just seems like something we’ll trip over in an unintuitive and borderline-case way, later on.


03-23-2010 22:48:23 UTC

I do not understand why this wording should be ambiguous. I agree to Kevan: Either you get this improvement, or not. Linking to another problem is easy, but how would you explain the “30 more Coal per Part” interpretation? I’m sorry, but I can’t understand that.

I don’t have made up my mind on the “Rich become richer” issue/point yet. I will write something about that later.


03-24-2010 01:19:51 UTC



03-24-2010 09:53:41 UTC

s/k for the queue against