Proposal: The Golden Mean
Timed out, 3-3. Failed by JonathanDark.
Adminned at 11 Mar 2025 17:29:11 UTC
In the rule Targets, replace
For each Resource, there is a Target for that Resource, a publicly tracked positive integer defaulting to 500.
with
For each Resource, there is a Target for that Resource, a publicly tracked range of positive integers defaulting to 450—500. The upper and lower boundary are included in the range.
In the same rule, replace
A Seeker can choose any Resource, and subtract any number between 1 and the Tension from the Target for that Resource, as long as both of the following conditions are true:
* That Seeker has not changed any Targets in the previous 72 hours;
* The change in Targets does not cause two or more Seekers to achieve victory simultaneously.
with
A Seeker can choose any Resource, and subtract any number between 1 and the Tension from the lower or upper bound of the Target for that Resource, as long as all of the following conditions are true:
* That Seeker has not changed any Targets in the previous 72 hours;
* The change in Targets does not cause two or more Seekers to achieve victory simultaneously.
* The change in Targets does not cause the lower bound of a Target being greater than or equal to the upper bound of that Target
In the same rule, replace all instances of “Seeker has as least as much” with “Seeker’s” and replace all instances of “as the Target for” with “is within the range of the Target for”
Probably needs some work (maybe you should be able to increase the upper bound as well by twice as much as you can decrease it), but I like the concept.
ais523: Custodian
So this proposal basically lets you make getting “too much” of a Resource actively a bad thing, rather than merely being useless.
The gameplay effects of that seem kind-of weird. If there’s an easy way to reduce a Resource value, then the upper-bound restriction becomes easily dodgable, and just ends up adding complexity to the rules without having any actual gameplay effect. If there isn’t, then it may make it easy to cause someone who is doing well to suddenly become entirely unable to win, because they’re doing too well.
As such, I’m currently planning to vote against this, although I’m open to changing my mind if someone explains the gameplay benefits.
(There’s also a typo you probably want to fix, “thr the” should just be “the”.)