Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Proposal: Why did we build this factory on a swamp

Timed out and failed, 6-7. Josh

Adminned at 13 Aug 2021 08:45:23 UTC

Add a new Machine to the list of Machines in the rule Machines:

Dehumidifier
*Cost: 1 Energy plus n Cogs
*Effect: Dry one Thing held by the owner of this machine per Cog spent in its activation

Add the following to the end of the rule Products:

Things can be Wet; a thing that is not Wet can be referred to as being Dry. By default, a Thing is not Wet. Wetness has two levels: Damp and Soaked. A Wet Thing is denoted by a ^ symbol after its name in gamestate tracking, with one ^ meaning that the Thing is Damp and two meaning that it is Soaked. When a Thing that is Wet is Dried, it ceases to be Wet. When a Things Wetness is increased, it goes from not Wet to Damp, or from Damp to Soaked, or from Soaked to being destroyed and removed from the game, as appropriate.

Add the following as a final step to the Cycle Atomic Action in the rule Energy Cycles:

Increase the Wetness of all Things.

This might look like a straightforward attack on the sugarcube gang, but it’s early in the dynasty and I don’t think it’s a good idea at this stage to completely divorce the Things game from the Energy and Cogs game; monofocused strategies seem uninteresting to me. This approach - of having there be a soft cap on the number of Things you can have dictated by your cog generation capacity - seems like it offers more opportunities to develop further gameplay.

Comments

Madrid:

11-08-2021 09:11:24 UTC

Goddamnit Josh lol. This feels like https://blognomic.com/archive/unstable_matter again where you also proposed to have a stuff that you didn’t have, decay.

We can have interesting mechanics without it needing to affect the current status quo this much. I’m not votelocking so that you have a chance to change this to something else.

Josh: he/they

11-08-2021 09:17:33 UTC

I’m not going to, so votelock away.

It’s very early in the dynasty and I have the energy to get into sugarcubes, so this genuinely isn’t a sour grapes proposal. I just don’t think that bifurcating the ruleset into two parallel, non-overlapping games is smart. Makes for a dull game.

I understand that you’ve already settled into looking at the game in this way (I see from discord that you’ve spent much of the last day talking about sugars vs non sugars) but do remember that the dynasty is not even a week old; I genuinely don’t see the game in that way yet and I don’t think many other people do either.

Madrid:

11-08-2021 09:26:53 UTC

against

Kevan: City he/him

11-08-2021 09:34:21 UTC

The earlier Batteries proposal seems equally disruptive of the status quo, changing the initial “build Machines that use transient Energy or ignore transient Energy and grow Sugar instead” into Energy just being a thing everyone gets: the Sugar players getting it in addition to their Sugar Cogs, the Energy players being no better off.

Josh: he/they

11-08-2021 09:42:51 UTC

I do worry that the sugar players have got locked into a “this is my resource, I’ll defend it to the death” mindset on day 4. Blognomic is a collaborative game building exercise first; we don’t appear to have a game yet

Lulu: she/her

11-08-2021 10:03:31 UTC

against this is only 6/turn, which is too easy imo

Josh: he/they

11-08-2021 10:14:15 UTC

@Jumble Surely better to pass and amend than leave it at nothing, right?

Also it’s not 6/turn; it’s 1 per Thing, and I don’t think there’s a cap on number of things owned yet?

ais523:

11-08-2021 12:28:43 UTC

for Part of the reason I’m a Sugar player right now is that Sugar appears to be sufficiently powerful that there’s no reason to do anything else.

I don’t think that this nerfs Sugar into unusability, but it does help to bring it closer in line to other strategies, and I think that’s a good thing.

I do have a wording issue: “n Cogs” leaves it undefined what “n” is. It should probably be “any number of Cogs”.

Lulu: she/her

11-08-2021 13:09:51 UTC

imperial misread it lol

Raven1207: he/they

11-08-2021 13:26:25 UTC

against

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

11-08-2021 13:29:49 UTC

imperial

Clucky: he/him

11-08-2021 14:43:04 UTC

Holding off voting for now.

I’d be okay with this if we had a clear way for people to remove machines so they could rebalance accordingly. So if https://blognomic.com/archive/machine_what_machine passes I’ll probably vote for, if not vote against.

Vovix: he/him

11-08-2021 14:50:39 UTC

against
?b64lines=IFRIRSBTVFJPTkcgTVVTVCBQUk9URUNUCiBUSEUgU1dFRVQu

Kevan: City he/him

11-08-2021 15:04:33 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

11-08-2021 15:27:20 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

11-08-2021 18:56:44 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

12-08-2021 01:52:20 UTC

for

lemon: she/her

12-08-2021 05:56:41 UTC

for

ais523:

12-08-2021 12:08:30 UTC

CoV against – in retrospect, I think the other fixes that have been proposed to Sugar being overpowered are less fiddly / easier to play with than this one.

This is only a weak AGAINST, though, and I’m not opposed to having all the fixes in place at once. (I do like the way the Dehumidifier works.)

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

12-08-2021 15:07:58 UTC

Changing my def to against. I’ve decided that this is just something I’d rather not have to play around. Just another thing to keep track of.

Bucky:

12-08-2021 22:16:35 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

13-08-2021 00:43:08 UTC

against