Topic: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): liopoil's turn (Read 80705 times)

scott_pilgrim · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:01:37 am »

Maybe at some point we make a rule that makes all other rules (not including itself) permanently immutable, so that we have to take at least two steps to screw someone over like that.

But anyway, I agree that keeping points secret is not the best solution. It's a lot of work to implement, and either it doesn't accomplish much, or we have to add a large luck factor. What I mean by that is, the less random scoring is, the better we know other players' scores, which defeats the whole purpose of keeping them secret. The only way we can really make the secrecy significant is by making the randomness greater, which adds more luck which I don't like (I don't mind some luck, but a lot is bad, and we need a lot to make secrecy significant).

If we really wanted to do the secret points thing, here is a rough approach that we could take. Players bid on things that score points. Players post their bids in a QT (I assume QT's give a time stamp so we can check that it's legit?). At any given time after point X (maybe after X things have been bid on), a player may post "I want to end the game". Then everyone reveals their QT's (so we can check who won each bid) and whoever has the most points wins (or scores one legacy point). I guess it would be hard to verify that at no point in time a player had less than N$0, but maybe that could be part of the game. If you dip below N$0 but manage to bring yourself back by the end of the game you're fine, but if you finish the game in debt, you lose (even if you score the most points); it's an option to take a giant risk. Man, I didn't think I would like this idea when I started typing it but now I actually like it a lot.

So the "things" that score points might just give flat points, or maybe they say like "worth 1 point per tile of land you own", or "worth 1 point per N$100 you have at the end of the game", or whatever, so that they're worth varying amounts to different people.

I don't really know what this means for liopoil, I don't think I would vote for his proposal as it is right now. I think he is obligated to maintain "the spirit of his draft proposal" though (unless we repealed that?).

WalrusMcFishSr · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:38:36 am »

Not a big fan of secret points. Definitely a fan of coalitions and working together, as it seems like a natural extension of the negotiative nature of the game.

liopoil · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2014, 07:34:18 am »

okay, I'll scratch that. I'll keep the legacy points. I'd like to add something else about points too, any ideas?

right now with legacy points, it seems that it's just "get as many total points as you can" with milestones every 100 points. Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point? that makes it much more advantageous to stop the player who is winning...

florrat · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2014, 10:31:33 am »

Quote from: liopoil on February 13, 2014, 07:34:18 am

Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point?

Hmmm... Not sure, I think I prefer not to.

And I'm not sure whether something needs to be added. Implementing Legacy Points in a "correct" way is probably already pretty tough.

heron · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2014, 10:34:37 am »

Quote from: florrat on February 13, 2014, 10:31:33 am

Quote from: liopoil on February 13, 2014, 07:34:18 am
Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point?
Hmmm... Not sure, I think I prefer not to.

And I'm not sure whether something needs to be added. Implementing Legacy Points in a "correct" way is probably already pretty tough.

I think we need to figure out how to win the game before we figure out how legacy points should work.

Voltaire · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2014, 10:42:30 am »

Quote from: scott_pilgrim on February 13, 2014, 12:01:37 am

I don't really know what this means for liopoil, I don't think I would vote for his proposal as it is right now. I think he is obligated to maintain "the spirit of his draft proposal" though (unless we repealed that?).

Yeah, it's still there (and in effect as far as I can tell).

Quote from: 324: (mutable)

Amend 312 to the following: At the beginning of their turn, a player may post a draft proposal for a rule change. When making the final proposal, he may change some details of the draft but the intention and spirit of the rule must stay the same.

Quote from: heron on February 13, 2014, 10:34:37 am

I think we need to figure out how to win the game before we figure out how legacy points should work.

Theoretically yes, but at this point liopoil is married to something involving either secret points or Legacy points, so let's make the best of that.

Voltaire · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2014, 10:48:35 am »

Quote from: liopoil on February 13, 2014, 07:34:18 am

okay, I'll scratch that. I'll keep the legacy points. I'd like to add something else about points too, any ideas?

right now with legacy points, it seems that it's just "get as many total points as you can" with milestones every 100 points. Should everyone reset when someone gets a legacy point? that makes it much more advantageous to stop the player who is winning...

You could get some sort of reward in addition to a legacy point - or wait, even better, something bad with a legacy point? Lose N$5000 or something? Make it so that getting more points is tricky.

The most important thing about Legacy points is to make the game not end when someone wins (as per 208 and 213. Note that 112 talks about winning but in a way that is fine for now).

sudgy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2014, 12:25:45 pm »

Instead of saying when someone gets to 100 points, you should say when someone wins. That way, no matter why they won, the game still goes on.

Voltaire · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:34:13 am »

Lio, your turn will technically be eligible for ending in the next few hours. Do you have a final proposal?

liopoil · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2014, 04:53:02 pm »

oops. Well, nobody has ended my turn yet, so I'll finalize a proposal now.

liopoil · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:03:42 pm »

Final Proposal 337:

Amend rule 208 to say the following: Each player has 0 legacy points at the time when this rule has been amended by rule 337. When a player joins the game, they have 0 legacy points. When a player reaches 100 points, they win. When a player wins, they add one legacy point to their total and sets their points to 0.

I hope the first sentence is worded well enough. Still, the game is currently just "try to get as many points as you can, with checkpoints every 100 points." I made the intermediate step of "winning" so that we can have alternate win-conditions, so that players can go for different methods of getting legacy points.

Voltaire · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:12:57 pm »

Initially I was worried that this doesn't change the fact that the game ends when someone wins, but then I couldn't find anything in the rules saying the game ends when someone wins. It's not exactly how I'd phrase/do it, but it's better than what we have. Intent to vote yes.

Voltaire · « **Reply #37 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:14:32 pm »

Ah, screw intent. Vote: Yes on Rule 337.

sudgy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 14, 2014, 05:39:04 pm »

Vote: Yes on Rule 337

florrat · « **Reply #39 on:** February 14, 2014, 06:10:56 pm »

When this rule is enacted can't we set our legacy point however we like per rule 116?

Voltaire · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2014, 06:13:02 pm »

Quote from: florrat on February 14, 2014, 06:10:56 pm

When this rule is enacted can't we set our legacy point however we like per rule 116?

No, because it says they start at zero? Or do you mean we need to say that Legacy Points can only be achieved via rule?

WalrusMcFishSr · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:02:59 pm »

Vote: Yes on Rule 337

Jimmmmm · « **Reply #42 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:06:23 pm »

Vote: Yes on Rule 337

mail-mi · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:15:17 pm »

Vote: Yes on Rule 337
just for the heck of it.

Jimmmmm · « **Reply #44 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:17:09 pm »

That's 6/11. Rule passes.

It is now Jack Rudd's turn.

mail-mi · « **Reply #45 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:17:33 pm »

Quote from: Jimmmmm on February 14, 2014, 09:17:09 pm

That's 6/11. Rule passes.

It is now Jack Rudd's turn.

im not in yet...

Jimmmmm · « **Reply #46 on:** February 14, 2014, 09:56:57 pm »

Quote from: mail-mi on February 14, 2014, 09:17:33 pm

Quote from: Jimmmmm on February 14, 2014, 09:17:09 pm
That's 6/11. Rule passes.

It is now Jack Rudd's turn.
im not in yet...

Oh. Right. Still liopoil's turn then.

florrat · « **Reply #47 on:** February 15, 2014, 02:33:17 am »

Causing confusing before you're in the game?

Voltaire · « **Reply #48 on:** February 17, 2014, 09:50:46 am »

Voting ended awhile ago. The vote passes 5-0. I declare it to be Jack Rudd's turn and mail-mi is back in the game.

Everyone, it is my reading of the rules he gets a new spot in the turn order, not his old spot. Speak up if you think that's wrong.

florrat · « **Reply #49 on:** February 17, 2014, 10:42:22 am »

Quote from: Voltaire on February 17, 2014, 09:50:46 am

he gets a new spot in the turn order, not his old spot.

Yeah, that sounds right. I think he should be at spot 1, though...

Dominion Strategy Forum

News:

Author Topic: f.ds Nomic 1 (Thread 3): liopoil's turn (Read 80705 times)