Friday, August 13, 2021

Proposal: Work to rule

Timed out 7 votes to 2 with Imperial DEF becoming FOR. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 15 Aug 2021 13:29:54 UTC

In the rule Energy Cycles, change “36 hours” to “60 hours”.

In the same rule, change “or no Cycle has been performed” to “or if at least 85% of Workers have a hot machine, it has been at least 36 hours since the last Cycle action was performed, and it has been at least 12 hours since the last time a machine was activated”.

The pace is too much at the moment.

Comments

lemon: she/her

13-08-2021 12:31:16 UTC

i’d vote for 48, but not 72

Kevan: City he/him

13-08-2021 12:43:59 UTC

Perhaps if we had a shortcut where we could also run a Cycle early if everyone (except Darknight, I guess) had a Hot Machine.

Josh: he/they

13-08-2021 13:17:20 UTC

@lemon Let’s split the dif on 60. (Half-days means that the threshold will cycle around timezones.)

@Kevan I’ve added something in; does that work?

Kevan: City he/him

13-08-2021 14:27:45 UTC

It doesn’t kick in immediately as 21% of our workforce (Darknight, Chiiika, Pokes) don’t seem to be taking actions. But I think it will feel a bit harsh when it does start to activate - anyone who takes more than 12 hours to submit orders risks missing each of their turns.

Josh: he/they

13-08-2021 14:59:28 UTC

Okay - added an absolute time check.

Vovix: he/him

13-08-2021 15:09:57 UTC

Greenstick, I like the flexibility, though it might make the “wait for X to pass so you can do it one cycle ahead of everyone else” game even more intense.

Clucky: he/him

13-08-2021 16:22:51 UTC

against

the day + 12 hours is good because it helps ensure that the end of cycle doesn’t always fall at the same time.

but I would rather see rules that make missing a cycle less punishing than ones that slow the game down by making people have to wait two days to do anything.

Vovix: he/him

13-08-2021 16:55:47 UTC

for @Clucky I’d rather not force people into a faster pace that they’re able to commit to. It’s a game we play asynchronously for fun, if a timer is too fast for some players to keep up, I’d rather slow down the timer than keep some players out.

Josh: he/they

13-08-2021 16:59:43 UTC

Yeah, I am honestly proposing this directly because it’s a matter of changing the pace or idle out for me.

ais523:

13-08-2021 18:04:07 UTC

for I don’t think this is too fast for me, but I do think it’s worth listening to people when they say it’s too fast for them – it’s important not to force people to overcommit to nomic-playing.

I will note that one potential issue with a 60-hour timer is that it makes it possible to miss a proposal entirely, having it be proposed and time out while you’re offline. Presumably, the best fix here is to slow down the queue in addition to the dynastic gameplay.

Bucky:

13-08-2021 19:03:19 UTC

imperial

Kevan: City he/him

13-08-2021 21:03:32 UTC

for Would be good to maximise both players and pace. Have proposed a simpler take on the 85% thing.

Lulu: she/her

13-08-2021 21:55:28 UTC

imperial

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

14-08-2021 00:05:23 UTC

imperial

lemon: she/her

14-08-2021 01:14:42 UTC

for

Janet: she/her

15-08-2021 04:18:31 UTC

for

Bucky:

15-08-2021 04:48:28 UTC

against