Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Proposal: Yet Another Victory Condition

Times out and passes at 6-3. The “Tie Prevention” clause requires exactly half of the EVCs to contain that phrase, which is not the case.

Adminned at 16 Jun 2011 00:56:40 UTC

If the Proposal titled “The Victory Condition II.b” passes, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new Dynastic rule “Defeats and Victories”, defined as follows:

Each farmer has a “Defeated” that is tracked in the GNDT.  Non-Landlord Farmers may only have a “Defeated” value of 0 or 1.  New Farmers and Un-idling Farmers have their Defeated set to 1.

Whenever a Zombie not owned by the Landlord moves onto a House not owned by the Landlord, one of the following two things happens:
1.  If the Owner of the Zombie has a Defeated value of 1 and the owner of the Home has a Defeated Value of 0, then the owner of the Zombie has his defeated value set to 0 and the owner of the House has his Defeated value set to 1.
2.  Otherwise, the owner of the house has his Defeated value set to 1.

Whenever a Zombie owned by the Landlord moves onto a house not Owned by the Landlord, the Owner of the house has his Defeated set to 1.

If exactly 1 non-landlord farmer has a Defeated value of 0 that Farmer may declare victory.

If every non-landlord Farmer has a Defeated value of 1, all non-landlord Farmer’s have their Defeated set to 0.

If half of the EVC’s contain the words, “Tie Prevention”, then append the following to “Defeats and Victories” :

If Shambling the Landlord’s zombies could cause all non-Landlord players to have their Defeated set to 1, the Landlord may destroy all Zombies for which he is the Owner.

After adding the new Dynastic Rule “Defeats and Victories” as described above, set all non-Landlord Farmers’ Defeateds to 0 and set the Landlord’s Defeateds to -999.

 

Apparently making a victory condition that people like is hard, so here’s my crack at it, in case Ely’s shot at it fails.  I tried to set it up so that defeated players still had a crack at victory while guaranteeing the count of defeated players would never decrease.

I can see a lot of ways to cause all players to have a victory value of 1, but most of them require unlikely situations and/or players to deliberately avoid situations which would have enabled them to declare victory.  There are also a few possibly-legal edge cases involving mid-shamble victories, but in that situation the player doing the shambling can generally get a victory without using weirdness.

posted by aguydude at 14 Jun 2011 00:16:39 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Bucky:

14-06-2011 03:38:03 UTC

imperial Tie Prevention

Yoda:

14-06-2011 05:15:40 UTC

against What’s the point of having my Defeated score be -999 if you just set it to 1 when my plot gets overrun?

That aside, I like the fact that it’s a much simpler version and allows farmers to keep their plots once they have been overrun rather than forcing them to start over, essentially repurposing the plot to a juice factory while still requiring the use of defensive measures.

for Tie Prevention

SingularByte: he/him

14-06-2011 06:09:00 UTC

Yoda, it looks like the defeated value of the landlord can never be changed. You’ll always have -999.
for Tie prevention

aguydude:

14-06-2011 06:39:25 UTC

for Tie Prevention

aguydude:

14-06-2011 06:58:49 UTC

Hmmm.  Just realized I could have simplified the second paragraph significantly by replacing it with this:

Whenever a Zombie not owned by the Landlord moves onto a House not owned by the Landlord and that House’s Owner has a Defeated value of 0, the Owner of the Zombie has his Defeated set to 0 and the owner of the House has his Defeated set to 1.

I think that’s equivalent.  Oh well.

aguydude:

14-06-2011 07:05:16 UTC

Wait, no it isn’t equivalent.  The whole reason I complicated it by splitting it into two conditions like that in the first place was to deal with people sticking zombies onto their own plot.  I’m sure there’s a way to scam hidden in my alternate variation somewhere.

mideg:

14-06-2011 07:41:37 UTC

against It’s true that this is simpler than Ely’s proposal, but it also leaves out some Fun: Defeated Farmers can still plant, harvest, do not gain additional Juice and so on.

Sure, that could be added later. But Ely has it all included.

Why, now I see that this does nothing if Ely’s proposal passes. So I can vote for . :-)

Purplebeard:

14-06-2011 08:05:49 UTC

for mideg: I would argue that restricting half of our gameplay mechanics to undefeated Farmers would be the opposite of fun, especially if the others only get ~20 Juice per week to play with, as with Ely’s proposal.

mideg:

14-06-2011 08:12:42 UTC

@purplebeard: I’m ok with increasing the Juice/week, but what does “Defeated” mean if not that you are not an alive Farmer anymore? I don’t like it having no effect at all other than loosing and being enabled to eventually not be Defeated any more, which might be difficult with the current game mechanics.

Purplebeard:

14-06-2011 08:24:07 UTC

In previous elimination-type scenarios, we had situations where most of the players had virtually nothing to do. If defeated players still get to play, even if their actions are relatively inconsequential, at least they’re doing something.

For example, in the nethack dynasty, a lot of players were stuck on dungeon level 1 with a few deaths under their belt and no realistic chance of winning. Some of us wiled away the rest of the dynasty by attacking and killing everyone in sight (and helped end the dynasty sooner, as it turned out). If we’d been restricted to only a couple of actions per week, that dynasty would’ve been even more boring than it was.

Ely:

14-06-2011 08:39:40 UTC

against  tie prevention, I prefer mine, but this is not that bad.

Yoda:

14-06-2011 15:04:19 UTC

mideg: I like the idea of farmers being able to still maintain their plot when they’re defeated.  Like PB said, it keeps the activity up, since now you’re trying to get back in the running by repurposing your plot.

mideg:

14-06-2011 15:29:40 UTC

CoV against

So that Ely can repropose a corrected version.

Winner:

14-06-2011 21:27:01 UTC

against

Florw:

15-06-2011 03:12:35 UTC

for per Purplebeard