Friday, January 20, 2012

You could say I’m… well rounded

“If a rule implies that the result of any calculation should be an integer (for instance, by attempting to store that result in, or add it to, a gamestate variable that can only hold integers), the result of the calculation is instead the result rounded towards 0.”

“The License, listed as “license” - 3750 Security, 0 Reputation. At any time, the Criminal that possesses the License may at their discretion lose X Wealth and gain F Firepower, where F = X / 2.”

I chose to lose -1 wealth and gain F firepower, where F = -1 /2. This rounds to zero, so that is 0 firepower gained.

I then build up millions of wealth, and converted it all to firepower using the license again.

I can effectively have as much firepower and wealth as I want. So can you if you steal the thing from me.

Obviously this should probably be fixed. Unless I’m missing a way to use firepower and wealth to achieve victory (as opposed to reputation, which can be done if you get like four people willing to keep throwing the same guy in jail over and over (which is legal, btw. might want to fix that too)). Of course, if you guys want to grant me victory because this mechanic isn’t working I wouldn’t complain =P But I’ll let someone else make the CfJ that fixes this either way =)



01-20-2012 12:30:54 UTC

“Unless otherwise specified, game variables defined to hold numeric values can hold only non-negative integers” in 3.3.1? You can’t plug negative variables into formulas.


01-20-2012 12:32:53 UTC

Nice idea, though, that really would work if the transfer worked both ways.


01-20-2012 18:15:02 UTC

“X” is not a “game variable”. The “, and any action that would set those values below zero is an illegal action unless explicitly otherwise stated in the ruleset” makes it clear that is referring to stuff in the GNDT. The ‘negative to transfer’ has been used before and I haven’t see anyone complain.


01-20-2012 18:15:29 UTC

This is why blanket rounding rules are bad.

I’d argue that “lose -1 Wealth” is nonsense/impossible… reminds me of this old Agora case:


01-20-2012 18:21:50 UTC

I can understand the argument “Wealth is a non-negative integer and therefore non-negative amounts of wealth do not exist”. However, I’m fairly sure dynasties have both used negative values in formulas and allowed for negative spending.


01-20-2012 18:39:33 UTC

I would say negative values in formulas (along with, say, “subtracting” negative numbers) are OK because negative numbers are normal in a mathematical context, but negative “loss” is not because loss is an ordinary language term that is not used with negative numbers.

But if BlogNomic custom is otherwise, let it be so. :p


01-20-2012 18:50:57 UTC

Losses can be negative just like gains can be negative. All “lose” means there is says it gets subtracted instead of added.

I can’t actually find a situtation we did it that way, I just recall doing it in the past and think that technically its allowed.

But feel free to CfJ otherwise. It would be good to at least have an authority on the subject. I’d just suggest resetting my gamestate to before the steal as I wouldn’t have stolen the licensed if it scam didn’t work =)


01-21-2012 20:34:39 UTC

“Please point out where in the ruleset it says you can’t lose a negative amount.”

Nowhere in the ruleset does it says so. Because it doesn’t need to.
It’s simple: there is no such thing as a negative amount of Wealth, since Wealth is a non-negative integer (2.3 Swag).
Just like there needs be no rule specifying you cannot “lose $1 Wealth”, there needs be no rule specifying you cannot “lose -1 Wealth”, because “-1 Wealth” doesn’t make any more sense than “$1 Wealth” does, and thus cannot you lose -1 Wealth.


01-21-2012 21:05:01 UTC

That just prevents someone from having a negative amount of Wealth, it doesn’t prevent the concept from a negative amount of wealth from existing. I recall situations in the past where people have used/abused a negative value of a non-negative integer, but can’t find any.

I like how some of you seem to be like ‘Its a legal move except you can’t put negative values into integers’ while others are like ‘Its a legal move except for the fact that you can’t lose a negative amount’ and still others are like “It’s a legal move except for the fact that Wealth can’t be negative’. Its like your grasping at straws going “Ooops. Clucky just broke the dynasty. Lets try and figure out how to rules lawyer our way out of this instead of just throwing up a CfJ that fixes the problem and cleans out ambiguity in the ruleset”