Tuesday, April 11, 2023

Proposal: Top Performer

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Apr 2023 14:42:08 UTC

Add a new rule named “Performance Review” and give it the following text:

There is a publicly-tracked variable named Performance Review that defaults to empty.

Whenever the Performance Review contains a date and time, the Engineer who has the highest Safety Checks at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review achieves victory.

If there are 2 or more Engineers who had the highest Safety Checks at exactly 48 hours after the date and time in the Performance Review, any Engineer or the City Architect may add 48 hours to the date and time in the Performance Review.

In the rule “Safety Checks”, add the following bullet at the end of the steps for the Inspection atomic action:

* If at least 1 Engineer has a Safety Checks of at least 100, and the Performance Review is empty, set the Performance Review to the current date and time rounded down to the nearest minute

First attempt at a WinCon. At the rate that Engineers are earning Safety Checks, this gives us a few weeks before someone will hit the threshold. Once they do, there’s still some time to fight it out for first place. Ties are also handled.

posted by JonathanDark at 11 Apr 2023 15:12:00 UTC Comments (7)

Comments

Brendan: he/him

11-04-2023 17:09:28 UTC

Won’t be voting in favor of this, as I wouldn’t have picked a Specialisation if it had been clear that it was going to set me back by 15% of the wincon. Can’t imagine anyone else besides Habanero and Kevan has a reason to vote in favor either.

JonathanDark: he/him

11-04-2023 18:26:59 UTC

I’m open to suggestions, but we’ll need a WinCon eventually, and I don’t know how else to appeal to the Engineers who haven’t been doing much up to this point.

Just thinking out loud here: would it be more fair to let Safety Checks be a currency that you can spend for a random chance to get something that turns into a WinCon? That way anyone with at least 1 Safety Check has a chance at achieving victory, but those who have more are rewarded with more chances.

If we agree (and maybe we don’t yet) that the core of the game is push-your-luck, then I feel like those who are most successful at this should have a higher chance at achieving victory. Perhaps not exclusively so, but I think it should be a factor.

Brendan: he/him

11-04-2023 18:34:48 UTC

I do agree that the core is push-your-luck but I think that using an existing stat where some players have an order-of-magnitude lead over others is not the best starting point. What if we used Accidents instead?

JonathanDark: he/him

11-04-2023 19:14:39 UTC

I don’t like the idea of using Accidents, because Engineers who do nothing or who play it safe with only low-risk Builds and Inspections will have 0 Accidents.

I’d be in favor of resetting or leveling-out Safety Checks if there was another way to capture the risk taken from performing a Build. If Wibble Quibble passes, we could quantify this risk like this:

N = G x 25 - F
Risk = N - Building Stability

If each Engineer had a new variable Expertise, and we changed Inspection to add the Risk to Expertise if Risk > 0, instead of adding extra Safety Checks, we could then use Expertise as the threshold for victory.

Safety Checks are then still useful as a currency for paying for Specialisations, so they don’t become Fool’s Gold, and Review Board events would still be useful.

Thoughts?

Brendan: he/him

11-04-2023 22:29:59 UTC

against I’m cautiously interested in the Risk idea.

Lulu: she/her

12-04-2023 09:40:23 UTC

against

JonathanDark: he/him

12-04-2023 12:46:45 UTC

against Withdrawn in favor of a newer Proposal