BlogNomic: The Ninth Dynasty of ais523

.  Second sentence is redundant.  We may have a ‘100 frags’ win condition later, but I think it’s a little early for a win condition.  Also, winning a victory isn’t necessarily the same as achieving it.

Eh, if you win a victory, you’ve achieved it. “Gained” is problematic, though - if I get 50 Frags, then lose them all, then get 50 more, I’ve met the win condition.

There’s a scam here (and I wonder if it’s deliberate). The GNDT is not the gamestate, so saying “have 100 frags” would be safe and unscammable. What you’re doing, though, is to tie it to the GNDT display of the gamestate, rather than the gamestate itself, and then ban only admins - rather than Gladiators in general, or people in general - from falsifying the record. So as far as I could tell, I could just make a false change to gain 100 Frags in the GNDT display and claim victory (I’m not an admin), with the last sentence powerless to help because it controls the gamestate frag, not the GNDT display.

The proposed rule could be worded much more simply and unscammably as “A Gladiator with at least 100 frags achieves victory.” The core rules will take care of shutting down any illegal-GNDT-update scams from there (changing the value in the GNDT would not change the actual number of frags, and an incorrect change could just be reverted).

due to ais523’s reasoning.

Fair point about the second sentence, hadn’t fully understood the gamestate rules. As far as winning and achieving goes, I think it’s fair to say that since win is defined as to be “successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict)” by Google, it is synonymous with ‘achieve’.

prince: The wording is very redundant and, as was pointed out, buggy.  A better way to say it would be “The first Gladiator to have 100 frags achieves victory.”  That wording already takes care of the gamestate/GNDT representation problem and is a lot simpler.