Saturday, February 03, 2007

Proposal: We got looks?

Adminned by Alethiophile.

Adminned at 03 Feb 2007 21:02:05 UTC

Create GNDT columns entitled ‘Looks’, ‘Talent’ and ‘Presence’.

Create a dynastic rule entitled “We’ve all got Presence”, with the following text:

Actors have three attributes (which take all rational values) and are as follows:
Looks This attribute encasulates how much the public enjoys looking at an Actor.
Talent This attribute encapsulates how good an Actor is at, well, acting.
Presence This atribute reflects the amount of “Presence” an Actor has on-screen. 

These values are tracked in the GNDT, and 0 is an average score for all people. All actors start with 0.1 Presence.  Within 24 hours of entering the game, or within 24 hours of enacting this rule, whichever comes later, any actor may opt to set eir Looks and Talent to any values for which Looks squared plus Talent squared is 1 or less.



02-03-2007 11:38:58 UTC

I might vote for this if I understood it.  Can you offer a slightly more straightforward explanation of the last line, for someone who never quite mastered polynomial equations?


02-03-2007 13:32:26 UTC

I’m unsure whats intendedby the final statement but I do know that a decimal squared yields a smaller decimal. Is this really what you want
? It would be nice if we could just change the values to be multiplied by ten so that the last equation would be (Looks/10)^2+(Talent/10)^2 < or = 1…


02-03-2007 14:37:14 UTC

“and 0 is an average score for all people.”

How does that part work?


02-03-2007 16:04:27 UTC

against The last dynasty also had multiple numerical scores, I think we should have something different for this one.


02-03-2007 19:01:20 UTC

against per Rodney and the idea that I get enough math in math class.


02-03-2007 19:04:02 UTC

Hm.  Clearly this game is no longer full of math geeks. . . .

And yes, snowball, that’s a reasonable idea: As you can tell, I wrote this late at night.

Looks times looks plus talent times talent adds up to less than one. 

Clucky: it doesn’t, yet.  I just threw it in there to add ‘hook’ for later.

Angry Grasshopper:

02-03-2007 20:22:51 UTC


Except I’m still idle, and only because I want to have complex stats! =D


02-03-2007 20:41:27 UTC

against I don’t think it was always *full* of maths geeks…


02-03-2007 21:37:14 UTC



02-03-2007 22:15:02 UTC

against I would prefer integer stats if were going to have any at all.. my brain hurts enough already :p

The average of 0 thing also makes this rule selfcontradictory, since once it is enacted, the average presence will be 0.1


02-03-2007 22:15:33 UTC



02-03-2007 22:18:25 UTC


Elias IX:

02-03-2007 22:24:48 UTC

against Integers… please?


02-03-2007 23:12:57 UTC

‘Clucky: it doesn’t, yet.  I just threw it in there to add ‘hook’ for later.’
The problem is that you seem to be saying that AVG(all actors) = 0. So if one actor’s stats go up by N, another actor’s stats must go down by N to make the rule work.

And Im a math geek =P


02-03-2007 23:34:27 UTC



02-04-2007 01:41:07 UTC

I’d be interested in a less number-crunching dynasty this time around. I know its the easiest way to have winning conditions, but maybe something else could be proposed that would add more interest.


02-04-2007 01:44:05 UTC

Huh?  Hulk no like numbers.  Hulk smash! against


02-04-2007 03:15:23 UTC

As a numbers kind of person I’m going to vote for doesn’t appear that it will matter though.


02-04-2007 04:34:13 UTC

I’ll do better math stuff at some point in the future.  against