Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmmmm]

Are they meant to represent players, or be players' minions?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Uhhh...either? Whatever you want? I specifically left it really generic so future rules can modify it how you want. If Units have lots of cool powders, and if losing your last piece means you lose...I guess it represents you. Ya know? Or maybe they're more vanilla and it's relatively easy to buy more pieces and amass an army. Or some combination, there could be different classes of units. You could take the flavor and mechanics in a bunch of different directions.

[florrat]

My comments:

- Since every player has less than 1 turn a month (based on history), 4 moves a turn is still not that much. How about 1 move per turn, even during opponent's turns? Maybe give each player 1 IP during opponent's turns (and then maybe just 2 or 1 on your own turn)?

- About what we can do with pieces (or units) on the map: I was thinking of the following future rule (but anyone else has to suggest it if they like it, since it'll take a while before it's my turn again).
Once during your own turn you may choose to place a treasure chest on the board. Doing so costs nothing, and it will appear in a random location (roll 2d16). The first player who gets to that location gains a random amount of N$ (for example a random number between N$100 and N$200).
It's simple, it provides an income, and I think it will feel like we're actually doing something. (if you can move during opponent's turns, active players will be rewarded more because they can move first. Not sure whether that is a feature or a bug).

- Minor thing: include in your rule that the amount of IP's you have cannot be changed unless explicitly allowed by some rule. Otherwise players can use rule 116 to do this (I think).

[WalrusMcFishSr]

I do like the idea of simultaneous movement florrat. It reminds me of Diplomacy, which is like my favorite game ever. I have a couple counter-comments though:

--If everybody is moving once per move cycle, do we have to wait for everybody? It might slow down the game even more. There would have to be a fair amount of time to give everyone a chance to move.

--I see that you say that movement would be done on a first come, first serve basis...if two players tried to move into the same vacant square for example, the person who posted first would succeed, and the second person's attempt would be invalid. This is fine...but it also rewards compulsively checking f.ds, which may or may not be a fun thing to do.

The alternative is something like Diplomacy, with a simultaneous resolution system...but that gets to be complicated, you need secrets and moderators, and again you'd have to wait for everyone.

Treasure chest sounds like a fine idea to me. I'll add the bit about not changing amount of IPs, thanks.

[Jimmmmm]

Hmm, if we only take moves on our own turn, then it'll be a long time in between moves. But if we can take moves on every turn, then that could become the main thing we post about.

What about something like, as well as the 4 IPs you get for free on your own turn, you can purchase IPs to spend on other people's turns. We could throw in a restriction that you can't spend IPs on two consecutive turns, that way no more than half of the current players will spend them on any particular turn.

More ideas: You can purchase cells and build properties on them. There are also locations that do certain things. For example, there might be locations where if you have a unit there it gains $x per turn. But you have to bring your unit back to a property you own in order for you to receive the money it has collected. And of course, while it's gone, someone else will grab the cell that produces money.

[Jimmmmm]

--I see that you say that movement would be done on a first come, first serve basis...if two players tried to move into the same vacant square for example, the person who posted first would succeed, and the second person's attempt would be invalid. This is fine...but it also rewards compulsively checking f.ds, which may or may not be a fun thing to do.

I think it would be okay, and preferable to a Diplomacy thing. Maybe we could simply say, at the end of each turn, for any players who attempted to move into the same space on that turn, one is randomly selected to succeed and the rest fail.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Hmm, if we only take moves on our own turn, then it'll be a long time in between moves. But if we can take moves on every turn, then that could become the main thing we post about.

What about something like, as well as the 4 IPs you get for free on your own turn, you can purchase IPs to spend on other people's turns. We could throw in a restriction that you can't spend IPs on two consecutive turns, that way no more than half of the current players will spend them on any particular turn.

More ideas: You can purchase cells and build properties on them. There are also locations that do certain things. For example, there might be locations where if you have a unit there it gains $x per turn. But you have to bring your unit back to a property you own in order for you to receive the money it has collected. And of course, while it's gone, someone else will grab the cell that produces money.

All this sounds awesome. It also seems like stuff that could work as add-ons to this rule...this one's a pretty bulky proposal as it is. Adding real estate and stuff would require a lot more complexity. Maybe if we get this up and running, then other people can propose new rules and amendments to gain and spend IPs on others' turns? It does seem like a good way to begin to integrate the world map with the Nomic economy.

[sudgy]

I like moving on the board and treasure chests.  Everything else I'm not quite so sure about.  I think there should maybe be a limit on how many pieces you can have.

I also like buying actions on other player's turns.  I think that's a good way to go about making the game more interesting.

[Jimmmmm]

I like moving on the board and treasure chests.  Everything else I'm not quite so sure about.  I think there should maybe be a limit on how many pieces you can have.

At the moment Walrus' draft has a one unit per person restriction.

One idea would be to have an upkeep that you must pay per turn or per round for each unit you have. We could even say that the more you have, the more they cost, say your first minion costs $1/turn, the next costs $2/turn etc. So you can have 5 units, but it'll cost you $15/turn to keep them alive.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Also a great idea.

My main motivation for the "add a Unit if you have none" rule was that it would be quicker and simpler to get this functioning, without a whole lot of dice rolling for initial position and such. Later on if it becomes relevant we could change that up.

[Grujah]

I kind of feel the same way about a territory grab scenario. I like territory-based games as much as the next guy; I love Go and probably you've seen me raving about Europa Universalis. But again, it's kind of irreversible, because people aren't going to want to give their territory up without a fight, so once we're set we're set. And without any clear goals, people will just follow their aesthetics--is it better to blob up? Or scatter around? Or control the center? Who knows! And then people will argue and try to bend the emerging rules to benefit their particular configuration.

Why is that BAD? I want to have people fighting over rules.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Don't worry, I'm sure that's liable to happen anyway haha. I just think this direction would be less likely to lead to an ugly stalemate, or not as quickly anyway.

And it can still be adapted towards a territory idea, just add a class of Units that can't easily, and allow yourself to get more of them! Or something. There still needs to be a rule to place entities of your allegiance on the board in order to go for that angle.

[Voltaire]

+1 to units, +1 to treasure map, +1 to Jimmmm's building/improvement ideas.

I think we do need to be able to move on the turns of other players so that moving doesn't become too slow/rare for each of us, but I agree there need to be restrictions on it so people can't go absolutely crazy. N$ fees or some such sounds like a good way to restrict this.

Not sure how complicated we want Walrus's rule to be. I'd vote for it in its current form as it's a great baseline.

The important thing to remember about all of this is that we can change stuff later. We could even play "chase the treasure chest" until we get bored, then delete the board entirely.

[Voltaire]

We could even play "chase the treasure chest" until we get bored, then delete the board entirely.

Not that I'd actually want us to.

[Jimmmmm]

I feel like there's something missing from all this, something that will make us actually want money and other things.

One idea I had was the where you have to have a building to stay in in order to propose and/or vote. I'm not sure how popular that was, but it definitely wasn't universally accepted. If not that, how else can we make money valuable?

[sudgy]

I feel like there's something missing from all this, something that will make us actually want money and other things.

One idea I had was the where you have to have a building to stay in in order to propose and/or vote. I'm not sure how popular that was, but it definitely wasn't universally accepted. If not that, how else can we make money valuable?

...Maybe make you able to buy points with $N and IPs?

[Jimmmmm]

I feel like there's something missing from all this, something that will make us actually want money and other things.

One idea I had was the where you have to have a building to stay in in order to propose and/or vote. I'm not sure how popular that was, but it definitely wasn't universally accepted. If not that, how else can we make money valuable?

...Maybe make you able to buy points with $N and IPs?

Yeah, there's always that. I dunno, that just seems like point-collecting. I think we can do better.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Exactly Jimmmmm. I think that something is an end goal victory condition, which should be instituted relatively soon. I just didn't want to think about it right now considering our actual game mechanics are currently quite bare-bones. There are other ways to approach it too, like the infinite money accumulation game, but that does not appeal to me as much.

If the goal of the game is to get a billion Nomic dollars, great! If it's to control 50% of the map, great! But I agree there should be something. I'll probably attack that on my next turn if nobody else wants to before then.

A voting building is an interesting idea too, although I wouldn't want it to be too restrictive. It could lead to cool decisions...do I really need to be present for this vote? Or should I keep mining for vanadium?

[Jimmmmm]

It could be as simple as, you have to have at least one unit inside a property you control in order to take your turn. You could even pay someone else to use their property if it's closer.

[Voltaire]

All this sounds great, but at this point we're planning 5,252 rules down the line. I think Walrus's proposal is ready to go, no?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

I think my proposal might have the muster to pass. It seems like most of the discussion here is ways that this idea could go further, which is encouraging, as that means fertile ideas for subsequent rules. This proposal barely fits within the confines of one rule right now and I would be hesitant to bulk it up any more.

I will incorporate florrat's suggestions and post a final proposal later today. If anyone has anything else to say, please do so!

PPE: Yes Voltaire

[Jimmmmm]

This proposal barely fits within the confines of one rule right now and I would be hesitant to bulk it up any more.

For the record, I wasn't asking you to add more to your proposal, I wanted to get an idea of where we might be heading with this.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Oh I didn't mean to impugn you Jimmmmm. I appreciate the discussion, and it seems like you've got a lot of good ideas!

[Grujah]

Ok, few things.

Would be a better rule if only it was about creating units, not moving as well. Actually it would be the best if IPs were one rule, creating second, moving third - so it is easier to refer to later.

I'm ok with cost/upkeep/multiple units. I'd be also ok if more than one unit can occupy one tile, but this might be more interesting. Maybe make it so that one player can have multiple units on same tile, but not on the same tile as other persons (so one can stack later when rules allow it, for some reason or anohter).


One thing I am not OK with - stuff about how it is represented on the game map. I think we should even have that in rules and that the map is purely a graphical representation of the current state, for ease of use only. Coloring the tile now might make sense, but later maybe there will be more than just a unit on a tile and it will make problems. So, I'd advise to just cut that part out.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Yeah, it would be better as multiple rules honestly. But I can't propose multiple rules without doing the whole suspension thing, right? And I don't want to "waste" my turn with a very basic proposal. I think it's fine, a little wedged but you can just amend later as necessary.

I'll keep the exclusion principle rule for now. Units are fermions. It just keeps things simpler, especially in representing it graphically. It could be easily modified later.

That is a fair point about the Google Doc though. I'll chop that part.