Friday, April 06, 2012

Proposal: Third prize is you’re not fired

Timed out 1 vote to 5, with 3 DEF and an abstention from the Net. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 08 Apr 2012 11:12:23 UTC

Amend Rule 2.5 (Cycle Resolution) by replacing the paragraph beginning “When an Powered Institution is resolved” (sic) with:

When a Powered Institution is resolved, the Players who directed any resources to it are ranked by how many Marines they directed to it, then by how many Credits they directed to it. Each player with at most two other players at the same or a higher rank Influences it, highest rank first. The extent of each player’s Influence is based on the number of other players at the same or a higher rank: 0 (Gold), 1 (Silver), 2 (Bronze), and “X/Y/Z” is shorthand for “X if the extent of their Influence was Gold, Y if Silver, Z if Bronze”.

In Rule 2.6 (Institutions):
* Amend The Mine by replacing “5 Power” with “5/3/1 Power”.
* Amend The Reactor by replacing “5 credits” with “5/3/1 credits”.
* Amend The Black Market by replacing “5 + N Credits” with “5/7/9 + N Credits”.




04-06-2012 18:29:14 UTC

imperial This could really shake things up.
Also, I love Chuck :P


04-06-2012 18:37:29 UTC



04-06-2012 18:57:15 UTC

against This completely messes up ties, and I prefer the all-or-nothing nature of the game.

Clucky: HE/HIM

04-06-2012 19:06:47 UTC

against First off, like Yonah said it breaks ties. Secondly, one could easily imagine a scenario where I am willing to pay 6 credits to get five power, but not 3 power. If someone bids 7 credits, by this rule I’d wind up spending those 6 credits on something that I don’t value at six credits. Thirdly, the rank formula is ambiguous. You could argue that to rank “first by marines, then by credits” means you sort by marines, then sort by credits (so credits are the main stat and marines break ties). You could also argue that “ranking” is to be done in inverse order. Fourthly, it vastly increases the courthouse’s potential to screw someone over if three people can access it a round. Fifthly it completely breaks the 96189 Pygmalion. Sixthly, and finally it makes “If each claim made by the player who influenced the Public last Cycle” problematic as there is no long “the player who influenced the Public”.


04-06-2012 21:49:09 UTC

Fifthly and Sixthly are small flaws that would need to be fixed (for instance substitute “a” for “the” for the Public, and give the Galatea to Gold Influencing Players only)

Fourthly, the Courthouse could be fixed as well, by replacing
“they may send the Net a message containing a list of institutions” with
“they may send the Net a message containing a list of 6/4/3 Institutions”
and replacing “The same player may not be ignored for multiple institutions in a Cycle; any message which would cause this to occur is ignored entirely.” with an explanation stating that Gold lists are processed first, then Silver lists, then Bronze, and if a list is inconsistent with previously valid lists (or with lists of the same rank) it is ignored completely.

I completely agree with thirdly, but then again it’s a simple wording problem and could be patched (I was gonna write “before the Institution becomes Powered” but then I realize this was not an Institution so the change will take effect immediately).

For the Black Market I would probably prefer something like 5+N / 5+1.5N / 5+2N (rounded up).

However Clucky’s “secondly” point is a big change to the game, so I’ll trust the Net on this (why are you abstaining? this is your dynasty!)


04-06-2012 21:49:31 UTC

imperial (I always mess this icon up)


04-07-2012 00:57:24 UTC

Additionally “5/7/9 + N Credits” is ambiguous, it could mean “5/7/(9+N)” instead of (5/7/9)+N

Kevan: HE/HIM

04-07-2012 07:48:41 UTC

against Per most of Clucky.

Josh: HE/HIM

04-07-2012 13:46:40 UTC



04-07-2012 18:17:39 UTC



04-07-2012 21:32:03 UTC