defectors being included in the quorum required to act on a proposition could be an issue, but this is a stub right now anyway

Pointed this out on another thread, but I think a big problem with this is that it makes optimal play really crunchy

If someone knows they are being cut out of the loot they’ll probably just defect. But this means optimal play is to ensure that people have the smallest window of time possible to know they are being cut out of the loot. Meaning more private backroom discussions where people agree to a split find a time Kevan will be online and then all quickly post their proposed split before anyone can respond accordingly.

again, if you’ve got the numbers for that, why not just pass a proposal

because that’s not how the game works?

you need to get a majority to agree a split. In theory you could get the same majority to pass a proposal, but what is the fun in that?

The fun should be in discussing who should get the loot and why, but I worry this proposal will drive those conversations into the shadows because it becomes disadvantageous for you if another player knows they aren’t getting any loot.

Wonder if we could add another round after the split that gives people 24 hours to defect. This keeps the benefit of loop distribution. And lets defecting be purely reactive.

Wanna pass a 3-3-3-0-0 split? Sure you can try it, but those two 0s might decide to have only one defect in order to seize the money and stick it to the folks that left the two of them out.—but that only really works if everyone has time to respond to the vote.

Undermines a central game loop that we haven’t even tried out yet.

@Josh my idea is that you can’t stiff someone when divvying up the haul or else they’ll defect. being a defector should come with some more consequences, but we can figure that out later

@Clucky I wouldn’t necessarily be against a 12-hour timer or such, but we can discuss it more later

@lendun I get the idea, but I think we should play with an unalloyed game loop at east a couople of times before trying to figure out how to tinker with it.

I don’t think the prisoner’s dilemma really works with multiple parties. Particularly, this dynasty seems too active for this mechanic.

Yeah I think this has promise, but Josh raises a good point that we should see how the distribution system works without this first and then adjust

per 4st

per the above