Sunday, August 08, 2021

Proposal: The Ultimate Camel with no Rivals

Failed 3 votes to 8, but for a second there, boy, did that camel run. Josh

Adminned at 09 Aug 2021 07:56:43 UTC

If more than 2 EVC contains the word “buy”, add a new subrule under Machinery named “Buying Machines”:

A Machine may have a Buy Cost. a worker may pay the Buy Cost of a Machine to gain such Machine.

If more than 4 EVC contains the word “mining”, add a new subrule named Crystals under Currency:

The amount of Crystals a Worker has is publicly tracked on the Dynastic Tracking page.

Then, if more than 2 EVC contains the word “crystals” and Crystals is in the Ruleset, add the following Machine into Machines:

Quartz Purificator
- Cost: 1 Box
- Effect: Gains X Crystals, where X is equal to the number of the Box used to activate this Machine modulo 4.

If more than 2 EVC contains the word “transformation” and there is a rule named “Buying Machines” add the following Machine into Machines:

- Buy Cost: 10 Cogs
- Cost: 1 Box
- Effect: Gains a Box with a number equal to 10 minus the number of the Box used to activate this Machine

If a even number of EVC contains the word “parity”, add the following Machine to Machines:

- Cost: a even numbered Box
- Effect: Gains a box with a odd number of your choice.

If a odd number of EVCs contains the word “split”, add the following to the Machine;

- Cost: one Box
- Effect: Gains two boxes with a number equal to the number of the Box used to activate this Machine

Then, if there is two or more Machine that was added due to this Proposal, add a subrule named “Prerequisite” under Machinery;

A Machine may have one or more Prerequisite. Unless all prerequisite of a Machine is satisfied, such Machine cannot be activated.

Then, if Prerequisite is in the Ruleset, then add the following Machine into Machines;

- Prerequisite: All of your Machine is in the cold state
- Cost: None
- Effect: Make all of your Machines Hot. If you do so, gain 13 Cogs.

Then, if there is three or more Machine added per this Proposal, and more than half of the For votes have a EVC of “functions”, add a new rule named “Functional Machines”:

A machine may be Limited. A Limited Machine may not exist on it’s own, or as the top Machine of a Machine Stack.

If more than 4 EVCs have the word “more”, then add a new rule named Handling Power:

A worker has a Handling Power, which is a publicly tracked integer defaulting to 6.

If more than 6 EVCs have the word “more”, then in Energy and Cycles replace

Each Worker may have up to six Machines


Each Worker may have as many Machines as their Handling Power.

If more than half of the EVCs have the word “augment”, adds a new subrule under Machinery named “Augmentation”:

A Machine may be Augmented. An Augment may modify how the Machine works, and can be Augmented on a Machine a Worker owns if such Worker pays the Buying Cost of a Augmentation.

Then, if more than half of the EVCs have the word “crazy” and Augmentation is in the Ruleset, adds the following under Augmentation:

This is a list of all available Augmentation:

Heat Sink:
Buying Cost: 7 Cogs
Augmentation: If this Augmented Machine is Activated for the first time in a Cycle, make it Cold.

A dozen riders on a single camel; Chiiika is amazed at it having stood.

“Y’all are going to bet on a camel for fricking posterity.”

Choices are “buy”, “mining”, “crystals”, “transformation”, “parity”, “split”, “functions”, “more” and “crazy”.

Place your bets.



08-08-2021 12:16:52 UTC


Josh: he/they

08-08-2021 12:20:41 UTC

God this isn’t even a camel, it’s a… lumpy centipede? With like a million gnome riders? idk

Anyway figuring out the permutations has given me a nosebleed so I think I must respectfully decline to place a wager in this race


08-08-2021 13:42:58 UTC

Last time we had a proposal that had weird requirements on the EVCs, it lead to a huge war of people repeatedly changing their vote in order to move the EVCs around and get their desired outcome, and there were eventually so many voting comments that it ended up triggering a bug in ExpressionEngine and making it very hard to tell how people had voted.

I think the bug has since been fixed, but something with this many options is likely to lead to trouble.

Also, I would vote against this in its current form, because Parity is probably too powerful and it’s impossible to stop the EVC war for that going through because the enacting admin effectively gets to decide (they can vote immediately before enacting the proposal), and because the trigger for Prerequisite seems ambiguous (it’s unclear what counts as a “section” for the purpose of the rule; my first thought as to what it meant was “core vs. dynastic vs. special case vs. appendix” but that doesn’t make any sense in the context).


08-08-2021 13:49:51 UTC

greentick for the sheer meme value

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 14:14:54 UTC

@ais Parity can’t be bought, it’s a stub awaiting a cost
also fixed Prerequisite.

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 14:20:32 UTC

ahh, saw where it can be bought

this rider is difficult to be balanced, so it is disqualified

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 14:24:08 UTC

12 riders started, 11 riders remains

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 14:34:34 UTC

Disqualifying riders isn’t fun, so 2 more is accepted into the race

12 started, 13 remains

Place your bets :)

Chiiika: she/her

08-08-2021 14:44:32 UTC

@ais also I think this won’t lead to an EVC war
since even if specific provisions fail it can be reproposed and rebalanced again
and this is just for the meme value and some idea starter


08-08-2021 16:00:56 UTC

Going to RNG what riders I vote for.

Clucky: he/him

08-08-2021 16:20:34 UTC

against sorry I just feel like there is way too much unpredictability with this

Lulu: she/her

08-08-2021 16:25:23 UTC


Lulu: she/her

08-08-2021 16:57:17 UTC

(but arrow for the meme)

Josh: he/they

08-08-2021 18:02:55 UTC

for “buy”, “mining”, “crystals”, “transformation”, “parity”, “split”, “functions”, “more” and “crazy”.

Kevan: City he/him

08-08-2021 18:42:49 UTC

This mostly seems like good stuff, but the “odd number of your choice” generator instantly puts us into silly “a googolplex cubed minus one” territory, so that’s a no from me.


Darknight: he/him

08-08-2021 19:08:08 UTC



08-08-2021 19:23:58 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

08-08-2021 20:10:03 UTC


lemon: she/her

08-08-2021 22:45:09 UTC

for i deeply appreciate the gumption of this proposal :U

mining, crystals, split


08-08-2021 22:53:31 UTC

against The odd-number-dependent generator wasn’t edited out of the proposal (and it can’t just be disqualified by a comment from the author). I would probably vote against the proposal anyway; there are some good ideas here but I don’t want an EVC fight over which specific ideas end up getting adopted.

Janet: she/her

09-08-2021 03:14:18 UTC