Tuesday, March 22, 2022

Proposal: Simplification for the early days of a new dynasty

Enacted popular, 9-0. Josh

Adminned at 23 Mar 2022 14:38:07 UTC

If there is a rule called Probulator Operation, re-write it as follows; otherwise add a new rule called Probulator Operation with the following text:

The Probulator is a pseudorandom output generator. Whenever a rule specified that an outcome be determined by the Probulator or at pseudorandom then it must be determined as specified by this rule. No rule may specify that an outcome be determined by the Probulator or pseudorandomly without also indicating a single Probulator Function.

The Probulator as a number of Functions, which are detailed in subrules to this rule. Each Function has the following characteristics: a name (which is flavour text), an output range (which is an description of the possible outputs that Function can return), a forecast value output (which is the next output that the Function should return if used), and a method.

When a Researcher uses the Probulator to determine an outcome, they must carry out the method of the specified Function as an atomic action.

There is a publicly tracked table of Materials. Each Material has a name (which is flavour text) and a list of Functions (which must consist only of names of Functions as detailed in subrules to this rule, and which must include at least one such Function). As a daily action, a Researcher may Probe one Material by selecting one Material, selecting one of the Functions in that Material’s list, and determining an outcome using that Function of the Probulator.

If there is a rule called Qubit Prediction, remove it. Add a new subrule to the rule Probular Operation with the name Probulator Functions and the following text:

This rule details the known Functions of the Probulator.

Name: Qubit Entanglement
Output range: 0, 1
Forecast output: 0
Method: Return forecast output and then change the forecast output one minus the current forecast output.

If there are any gamestate tracked entities called Test Qubit A or Test Qubit B, remove them. Add a Material to the list of Materials with the name of Test Qubit and a Function of Qubit Entanglement.

This should do more or less the same things as Proposal: Power Up the Probulator, but more readably and with more consistent language, I hope.


Thunder: he/him

22-03-2022 12:13:51 UTC

Requiring an ordered list of possible outputs could make more continuous outputs (like a stock market mechanic or something) really annoying to write. Maybe something like “which is a description of the possible outputs that Function can return” and changing the Qubit Entanglement Method to be “Return forecast output and then iterate forecast output to one minus the current output.”

Josh: he/they

22-03-2022 12:25:22 UTC

Thanks - have changed

Lulu: she/her

22-03-2022 14:59:44 UTC


Roujo: he/him

22-03-2022 15:04:06 UTC

A difference I can see between the “Forecast Output” here and the “Seed” in the original proposal is that the former feels like the next value is computed when the previous one is used, while the latter has the value computed at the moment it’s needed.

For example, a Function based on the phases of the moon would have it’s next value decided based on what the phase was when the previous value was returned, instead of using the phase of the moon right now. Both of those are valid design choices, but I prefer the original one both flavor-wise (fresh values rather than premade ones) and gameplay-wise (I prefer figuring out what the algorithms would currently return in order to gain an advantage, over planning Function state changes in advance in order to set up the board to my advantage). ^^

Roujo: he/him

22-03-2022 15:04:43 UTC

The wording is more straightforward, though, so good job on that! ^^

Josh: he/they

22-03-2022 15:31:49 UTC

That’s true @Roujo - I think starting from a simpler base and amending makes sense though - the difference here is literally because I couldn’t completely understand what the original was doing 🤣


22-03-2022 16:18:22 UTC

for Sounds good, and it’s definitely clearer than my original proposal!

Roujo: he/him

22-03-2022 18:32:15 UTC

Fair enough @Josh ^^


I’ll write up a proposal to switch it back to the other behaviour if this passes, but I’ll wait until this has been processed - I don’t want to write a bunch of “if proposal X has passed but Y hasn’t” conditionals 😅

Clucky: he/him

22-03-2022 22:07:58 UTC


SingularByte: he/him

23-03-2022 06:21:55 UTC


wdtefv: hu/hum

23-03-2022 11:11:41 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

23-03-2022 11:12:59 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

23-03-2022 13:52:56 UTC