Friday, April 21, 2023

Proposal: Risky Business

Timed out / quorumed 7 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 24 Apr 2023 08:43:57 UTC

In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:

add the Risk of this Build to their Expertise

with this text:

add the greater of the Risk of this Build or 1 to their Expertise

In the rule “Demolition”, replace this text:

Replace the Block corresponding to the Block Number

with this text

Replace the Block whose Block Number matches the result of the dice roll from the preceding step

Now that Expertise is the WinCon, we need to look more closely at how it’s gained or lost. In previous Proposals, Engineers could control when Expertise was gained/lost by timing their Inspection. The recent changes are different in that Expertise is gained/lost in every Build, which means there’s a disincentive to perform the first few Builds because each Engineer who does so will lose Expertise, due to the number of Gaps being low and Building Stability being high. Risk will be a negative number. We’re stuck with no one wanting to Build unless we change that.

For example, right now the next Build will have -377 Risk at a minimum, unless the number of Gaps changes from something else like a Threat or Specialisation. No one is going to take that hit to their Expertise. Furthermore, to provide any incentive at all for a Build other than gaining Safety Checks, the Engineer should get a little bit of Expertise, the minimum positive value. This fits nicely into Taiga’s Proposal to multiply the Expertise gain in other situations.

The fix for Demolition is something I just noticed. The wording definitely needed clarification on which Block was being chosen for replacement.


Taiga: he/him

21-04-2023 16:47:40 UTC

If not for this Proposal I never would’ve noticed the difference between an integer and a non-negative integer, and if I could Build, my Expertise is probably negative by now. ´д` ;

All in all, I think we do need this Proposal. (I’ll vote four hours later in case there’s any changes)

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

21-04-2023 16:59:58 UTC

I’m sure that some people were just keeping silent and hoping someone would fall into this trap and get forced to take negative Expertise, but I was more concerned that Builds would be effectively halted if everyone noticed this and no one wanted to Build.

Apologies to whomever wanted the trap to be sprung.

Taiga: he/him

21-04-2023 23:19:11 UTC


Lulu: she/her

22-04-2023 05:04:14 UTC


Kevan: he/him

22-04-2023 13:17:06 UTC


Josh: he/they

23-04-2023 05:50:11 UTC


Brendan: he/him

23-04-2023 11:38:37 UTC


jjm3x3: he/him

23-04-2023 16:45:36 UTC