I obviously didn’t want to get into this at the end of the last dynasty, but I think we do need to fix the general snowballing of Favours. Once somebody has pledged a few to get ahead, that gives everyone else a reason to push that player further ahead by granting them even more Favours, which also have no downside to the player accepting them - if the player wins, those Favours all become gold-standard Imperial Favours and the winner doesn’t have to pay anything back. If players switch to trying to kingmake the second-place player instead, and the kingmaking fails, then they’ll only get some less-valuable Player Favours for it.

I’d be up for an end-of-dynasty naturalisation; maybe setting it so that during interregnum, any Vampire Lord can remove any duplicate Favours held after the first, so each player can only have one Favour per other player carried over?

I added an Interregnum leveller.

I have a suspicion that Favours are doing the opposite of fixing a problem: I’d prefer to look into incentives for people who are doing well in a dynasty to not help in a pooling win, as opposed to actively encouraging them to pool in order to get an advantage next dynasty. IMO it’d make more sense to award something Favour-like to whoever was in second/third/etc. place at the end of the dynasty, rather than to people who help out the Emperor (so that there was an incentive to not pool even if you weren’t going to win).

As for the proposal itself, I think I can see what it’s getting at, but the text is a little unclear. I think the whole “spend/incur” thing comes down to “two players can agree to make a pair of Favours, each owing a Favour to the other, as long as one of them is spent immediately”, and I wonder if there’s a clearer way of wording that.

Withholding my vote for now, though, mostly because I don’t have a good enough handle on the existing Favour situation (I don’t think it’s too early to vote, and would be voting in this post if I had a clear idea of what I wanted to vote for).

Last dynasty’s Favours worked as intended, I think by chance, in that they had to be bought with what were effectively victory points, so in a close game the second place player couldn’t risk buying any. (If Josh had had an unassailable lead or if I’d had any Cash left after the final round, I’d have snapped up Josh’s leftover Favours in the pause before the new dynasty, which nobody else had noticed was still an option.)

Favours came in a couple of months ago with I think no particular fix to anything intended, just something interesting to try out.

This proposal should significantly increase supply, so helps those without a deep stockpile. That said, increased liquidity and defined applications should help everybody.

Doesn’t this still cause Brendan’s proposal to lock someone into thrawllness? How do you get out if the person who thrawled you already has five favors?

Seems like we need to allow favors earned this dynasty to go above five, but then any you have above five die off at the end of the dynasty.

(Clucky, fwiw, there are two other ways to get out of being Enthralled: have Richardo trigger Puissance gains that would go to you during a run, or having the player who Enthralls you also get dusted and then resurrecting them back.)

ah missed that part. seems fine then

I’m not against raising the cap, but the higher cap just means that the cap will be higher, not that people won’t hit it.

Unless you mean removing the cap altogether? Because that surely opens the door to infinite resource scams with quite small pools.

...

Oh, this proposal is already full of infinite resource scams with quite small pools, isn’t it? You cheeky monkeys.

I added “Conducting a Favour transaction of any kind with each discrete partner is a daily action”, such that Eric and Anna can’t bounce Favours and Puissance / Influence off of each other for an instant 1,000,000 of each - I think that the wording works to mean that Anna can only do one Favour trade with Eric per day, but can still then do a single separate Favour trade with Erin and/or Josh and/or Hamish…

Eight-hour window coming in hot.

I was going to use those 13 seconds of my edit window, Brendan

“This proposal should significantly increase supply, so helps those without a deep stockpile.” - Favours expire after one dynasty, though. Idling nuances aside, all you’re doing is setting up how many Favours some people are going to have during the Xth Dynasty of whoever is next.

as I’m not that interested in Favours as a mechanic.

@Kevan - did you notice “If the game is in Interregnum, any Vampire Lord may remove any duplicated Favours (i.e. repeated Favours with the same holder and lender) past the first from all Vampire Lords”?

I did, but it wasn’t in my mind eight hours later. What deep stockpiles are you talking about, then?

@Kevan It is my perception that the change in this proposal makes it easier to generate Favours, so those who currently have a lot are at less of an advantage than they would be if supply was still scarce.

Not sure I can see why it matters who has what already - Lemon, Pokes and Jason can (and must) spend last dynasty’s now-Ripe Favours to grab stuff during this dynasty; whoever gets Unripe Favours from this proposed system will have one to spend next dynasty. They’re two different dimensions. Making the next dynasty’s Favour distribution more balanced doesn’t change the situation in the current dynasty.

I guess

Oh, right, I guess the “spend Favours” is meant to also apply to those we’ve just gained, so we’re dropping the idea that Favours are purely future trading, for one dynasty.

Yes, although ripeness does still need fixing before this starts actually working properly

The idea is that this is temporarily moved into a dynastic-mechanic space before being moved back during the interregnum

sure :0