Thursday, February 28, 2013

Proposal: The Final Frontier

Reaches Quorum and passes 11-1.

Adminned at 01 Mar 2013 08:30:46 UTC

Enact a new rule, “The Final Frontier”, containing the following text:

The wiki page ‘Galaxy Map’ contains the Galaxy Map. The Galaxy Map is an undirected graph, the initial structure of which is defined by the following diagram:

< Diagram moved; viewable

here. >

Vertices in this graph are called Sectors and may be referred to by the names given in the diagram. Edges in this graph are called Starlanes.

Each Captain has a Position, tracked in the GNDT under the column “Position” and defaulting to “Earth”. A value for Position that does not correspond to the name of a Sector in the Galaxy Map is not a legal value. As a daily action, a Captain may Travel to another sector by changing their Position to the name of a Sector in the Galaxy Map that is joined by a Starlane to the Sector named by their current Position. A Captain whose Ship Class is “-” cannot Travel.

I apologize for overlapping Starlanes in the image. I’ll correct that later—it’s enough to tell the structure for now, and I wanted to get this up here quickly. Should any changes need to be made to the galaxy map, I offer to maintain it as I created the source that generated this image.
Altered by a later Proposal; Check the first revision for what was used.

Comments

RaichuKFM:

02-28-2013 00:38:06 UTC

for This is fantastic, although quite large.

MurphEngineer:

02-28-2013 01:02:55 UTC

Thank you very much! To me, the size “feels right”—it works out to three Sectors per Captain and a few extra. This is about the ratio you want if, for example, we end up creating some kind of “Conquest” system (although, with 13 Captains at the moment, that could get pretty nuts—we’ll see what happens). Plus, with lots of Sectors it’s easier to designate a few of them to be “special” in later rules (e.g. starbases, resource collection points, etc.) without having to crowd them together or settle for fewer.

RaichuKFM:

02-28-2013 01:07:22 UTC

Actually, I was moreso referring to the image’s dimensions as it seems to have invaded the sidebar. And it should probably be a Wiki page, but this is a good enough start.

Larrytheturtle:

02-28-2013 01:43:53 UTC

for

Skju:

02-28-2013 02:50:38 UTC

for I hope we put the map in a wiki page. Although not a major concern, some connections (around Rigel, Monoceros, and Betelgeuse) needlessly overlap, which could be construed as ambiguous.

MurphEngineer:

02-28-2013 02:56:43 UTC

I think I’ve found the correct option to lay out the map such that Starlanes are drawn unambiguously. (I’m using Graphviz to render it. Sometimes it makes weird placement decisions…) I’ll keep it at this version until this Proposal is resolved, though, just so it doesn’t look I’m changing the map halfway through voting.

nqeron:

02-28-2013 03:26:01 UTC

for

quirck:

02-28-2013 06:39:57 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

02-28-2013 07:49:19 UTC

for but let’s add a distance matrix to this.

Kevan:

02-28-2013 10:08:53 UTC

for

I suspect changing the map image halfway through voting, or upon enactment, would be illegal, depending on how literally we were talking “the following diagram”. (Requiring us humans to interpret it as “the diagram depicted at the following URL, which you can only see in the post’s source code” seems unnecessarily technical.)

scshunt:

02-28-2013 13:56:29 UTC

against since I don’t like that it’s hard to follow some of the connections.

Murphy:

02-28-2013 14:43:20 UTC

for

kikar:

02-28-2013 19:53:48 UTC

for

Spitemaster:

02-28-2013 20:36:08 UTC

for