Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Proposal: Training Fix

Timed out 1-3. Failed by card.

Adminned at 27 Apr 2017 23:23:04 UTC

Amend “Training” to read:

As an action (without limitation of time), any manager may train a player. Training is an Atomic Action consisting of
1. Spending $(DICE100*1,000) or $75,000. (One must decide which without first rolling the D100)
2. Declaring a primary and secondary stat (including a player’s level)
3. Rolling 1 DICE6 in the GNDT.
4. If the result is 1, decreasing both the primary and secondary stats by 1.
If the result is 2 or 3, doing nothing.
If the result is 4, increasing the primary stat by 1.
If the result is 5, increasing both the primary and secondary stats by 1.
If the result is 6, increasing the primary stat by 2 and the secondary stat by 1.

See my other post.

Comments

Oracular rufio:

26-04-2017 01:04:16 UTC

I would honestly be more in favor of a complete overhaul of this so that it is no longer possible to simply brute-force high-level players.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

26-04-2017 09:42:29 UTC

oracular rufio, after this brute-forcing them, should be fine because it is balanced by cost.

pokes:

26-04-2017 11:01:25 UTC

Why make the cost random? I was going to propose in my next free slot just making it a flat but high cost.

pokes:

26-04-2017 11:01:46 UTC

Actually, I can just put that in my slot now.

Oracular rufio:

26-04-2017 11:05:49 UTC

I don’t think it is balanced, though.  Either the cost of training should increase the more you train, or there should be a fixed limit on the amount of training you can do.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: he/they

26-04-2017 11:28:35 UTC

oracular rufio, I like the idea of an increasing cost of training. If either of the fixes passes, I could try to throw that together.

card:

26-04-2017 16:44:39 UTC

imperial

Crumb:

27-04-2017 16:26:13 UTC

against I have a time limited alternative to propose in approximately 3 hours.

card:

27-04-2017 19:40:20 UTC

CoV so that we don’t have to wait 7 days for this to drop off just because the votes are tied.  against

derrick: he/him

27-04-2017 21:04:47 UTC

against