Friday, May 02, 2025

Proposal: The Interdynastic Scoreboard

In the “Building Blocks” section of the ruleset, create a new rule, “Interdynastic Scoreboard”:

Each Agent and idle Agent has an Interdynastic Score, tracked on the [[Interdynastic Scoreboard]] wiki page (only nonzero scores are listed individually – zero scores are combined into a single “everyone else” entry). Interdynastic Score is a number defaulting to 0. When this rule is added to the ruleset, if it was in the ruleset previously, each Agent and idle Agent regains the Interdynastic Score they had at the time that this rule was repealed (if any).

Rules other than this one can only change an Agent’s Interdynastic Score as a consequence of a Declaration of Victory, and only by increasing it. An Agent’s Interdynastic Score cannot be increased by more than 100 over the course of a single dynasty. When writing proposals that add victory conditions, Agents are encouraged to make that proposal also amend the dynastic ruleset such that upon the enactment of a Declaration of Victory, it increases each Agent’s Interdynastic Score by a number from 0 to 100 based on how close that Agent was to winning.

At the end of the last paragraph of “Guards and Burglars”, add

When a Declaration of Victory is enacted, each Agent gains Interdynastic Score equal to that Agent’s Successes, times 100, divided by the maximum number of Successes across all Agents, rounded to the nearest integer.

One common problem that BlogNomic has is that it’s single-winner, and that means that a) players who don’t have a chance to win don’t have much of a reason to do anything, and b) in dynasties where pooling of resources is possible, that encourages players to randomly select who to pool resources onto, giving players who are behind a nonzero chance to win, but often making most of the dynasty’s conventional gameplay pointless in the process.

I’ve thought for a while that it would make sense to give players a reason to try to improve their own position in the dynasty even if they are too far behind to win – that way, players who were too far behind would have something to do, and players would have an incentive not to pool (or at least, not to spend too much on pooling) because they would be hurting their own score. But because the position has to be measured at the end of the dynasty, it has to be something that persists into future dynasties. Making it a simple scoreboard, where each player is scored from 0 to 100 based on how well they did in the dynasty, seems to have the desired properties.

At present, Interdynastic Score doesn’t do anything, but it might in the future – I have been considering that maybe it would be safe to reintroduce mantle-passing rules as long as players were restricted to only passing the mantle to players who had had few dynasties compared to their Interdynastic Score counts (so that players couldn’t intentionally hurt their own position in the dynasty in return for a mantle pass, which is the reason why we repealed mantle-passing). But I’ll leave that for future proposals, and just stick to the simplest possible implementation for now.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

02-05-2025 17:32:50 UTC

the ephemeral nature of dynastic is part of the selling point of the game against

Darknight: he/him

02-05-2025 17:50:14 UTC

against

qenya: she/they

02-05-2025 18:54:42 UTC

Ooh, this is a fun and interesting idea.

It strikes me as slightly counterintuitive that this rewards participation above, necessarily, success; someone who plays twenty dynasties, finishing in the bottom third every time, ends up with a much higher score than someone who only played two dynasties but won both. But maybe that’s the point.

I think I’m tentatively for this (as I would typically be for any new mechanic that doesn’t appear to break anything or create any perverse incentives and presents opportunities to build upon it).

Kevan: Concierge he/him

02-05-2025 18:54:50 UTC

against Seems bad as a simple running total, for rewarding the kind of passive play that we’ve had problems with over the last few years.

Your mentioned iteration with some running “average score per dynasty” score has more potential, but are scores across dynasties really that comparable? Especially when they’re being invented by a dynasty’s players each time, who may well be happy with “100 for all players” to get themselves ahead in this metagame.

ais523:

02-05-2025 20:09:37 UTC

I think the “100 for all players” problem is fixable (by, e.g., scaling the rewards down if the average is over 50) – if I make a future version of this proposal I’ll try to do something like that.

The “rewarding players who passively stay to the end of the dynasty doing nothing” is harder to fix, though – I’ll have to think about it more. (Note that the current BlogNomic metagame significantly rewards doing that, as dynasties often end in a somewhat random manner.)

Ideally there would be some mix of rewarding participation and rewarding success. There’s another, non-nomic, game that I play that has a similar sort of interdynastic scoreboard, but it only rewards players who finished in the top third. That would solve the nonparticipation problem, and balances participation and success fairly well, but it reintroduces the problem of “if you’re far behind then you have no reason to engage with the dynasty”. Of course, cause and effect may go the other way round from what we’re expecting – it might be that the reason why people stay in a dynasty doing nothing is because they don’t expect to win, and thus have no incentive to do somethign.

JonathanDark: he/him

02-05-2025 20:46:01 UTC

The problem is that some dynasties are decided by wildly different mechanisms such as random chop (objectively measuring roughly by success in the dynasty) and on the opposite end by subjective means (1-3 players pick the winner based on personal criteria).

Treating those as equivalent successes for this interdynastic scoring seem to be a tall order, even if you allow for the fact that per dynasty, a victory condition should also specify the interdynastic scoring.

We’ve seen the debates just over who and how a player should achieve victory. Can you imagine that multiplied 10x for how interdynastic scoring should be awarded?

against

DoomedIdeas: he/him

03-05-2025 00:06:15 UTC

against

You must be logged in as a player to post comments.