Print

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

[EFHW]

1. Would loans be allowed? 
2. What is the reason for giving the bank a limited amount of funds? 
3. Will the current amount of money in the bank be posted somewhere?

[scott_pilgrim]

I'm not sure why we would want that.  It basically just means one player can hoard all the money if they want?  That sounds fun for someone, but odds are against that someone being me.  Even if hoarding is not a problem, I think it would be disappointing/frustrating to just be going about your normal business and then not get some money you would otherwise get because the bank ran out on your turn.  It just seems like an unnecessary limit to me.

[Grujah]

Wouldn't allowing IOUs from the bank make it effectively the same as not having a bank?

It means that there is limited money in the system. It means that if nobody is spending, nobody can get money.


@scott - how can one person hoard? HE can but he will be doing less than other people, no? If it becomes a problem, Tax the richer more than the poorer.

Well, even in RL (at least here), paycheck is sometimes late. You will get your money soon enough, if the economy is running.

[Voltaire]

bump

[Grujah]

going to sleep now, no time till tomoz.

[Grujah]

no time.

END MY TURN/

[Voltaire]

I declare it to be florrat's turn

Ending a turn requires naming the next person, just fyi.

[EFHW]

Didn't Florrat quit?

[Voltaire]

Didn't Florrat quit?

I declare it to be Walrus's turn

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Oh shit! I promise I'll do something this time. I'll get something up by tonight hopefully. To be honest, since I missed my last turn I've been feeling pretty out of the loop...I'll have to review the last round of rule changes first.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Hmmm OK, just glanced over the recent rule set, and I have some questions I guess.

So on my turn, I could do the following things right now:

--Create one (and only one unit) somewhere on the map, but not on a treasure chest.
--Move it around pointlessly, considering I can't claim proximity or a treasure chest.
--Upgrade my unit to a soldier or farmer, or boost its speed or skill stats.
--Place a treasure chest, which is probably worth doing.

Questions:

--Are unit class and stats represented on the map right now? I see 2F for food, but no indication of soldiers or whatever. Or has nobody actually differentiated any unit classes yet?

--When it says "class may be assigned at placement", does that mean that I can create a unit and assign a class both with 1 IP, or would that still cost 2 IP?

--Let's say I wanted to be a jerk. If I placed a unit at D12, for example, and upgraded it to a soldier, does that mean that EFHW or nobody could claim the treasure chest at D13? And then somebody else could try the same jazz against me, and we'd end up at a standstill?

--Do multiple skill levels actually do anything at the moment for farmers or soldiers? Or is it just a 1/0 thing right now? Possibly the situation above could be avoided if there were the possibility for multiple soldier levels...a level 2 soldier could "overpower" a skill 1 soldier, allowing for movement anyway. Otherwise we might just get a few trollish soldiers floating around disrupting everything. Possibly it should also be the case that armies of different players should be able to combine their strengths to attempt to overpower each other. This is reminiscent of Diplomacy, which is the best game ever. Similarly, +'d up farmers could produce even more proximity points.

Maybe in order to avoid degenerate "arms race" and "farms race" type behaviors it should be the case that successive boosts in skill have increasing price tags, a la Cookie Clicker. This too might encourage people to work together more, seeing as how it would be highly cost efficient to combine two level-5 soldiers if the level-10 equivalent costs 32x as much or whatever.

--There are still no ways to obtain multiple units, correct? This is not necessarily a bad thing...I mean it could be more like Chess where we each have many units of different types, or more like D&D where we each get single characters of a particular class to develop more fully, and then work together with complementary players. Either way could be cool.

--Is there a way to produce food right now, besides creating a unit? Or is it just get created with 2 food, eat it, then starve? I don't want my units to starve! Possibly farmer skill levels should have something to do with food production?

So yeah, I'm thinking that my proposal will be something like defining skill levels beyond level 1, introducing food production, or both. Please let me know what you think, or if I'm wildly misunderstanding anything...as I said I haven't really been "in" to this game for the past couple weeks.

Which reminds me...we should also find some way to encourage greater player interactivity between turns. Because right now, I feel rather detached from the game most of the time.

[Voltaire]

To answer your questions, Walrus...

1. Class and stats are not represented on the map right now because nothing has been assigned
2. I think 1 IP.
3. I think so.
4. No, the rule is, by design, incomplete to allow for others to add/customize as desired.
5. Correct. Still only 1 unit each.
6. Nope! This obviously needs to be fixed.

Which reminds me...we should also find some way to encourage greater player interactivity between turns. Because right now, I feel rather detached from the game most of the time.

As this game has clearly stagnated, I would be a fan of two things:

1. Give everyone 1 IP on every turn (more on your own turn, maybe, if we wanted to do that)
2. Get rid of all this class/skill system, which seems confusing and in my opinion is a bit of a complexity-bridge-too-far in this game (as measured by declining interest here)

[WalrusMcFishSr]

OK cool, perfunctory matters first:

Create E12
Assign Unit at E12 to Soldier class

Since Voltaire was the only one that offered any feedback, I'll assume this is accomplished with 1 IP. I could see both sides honestly...it does say that a unit is "assigned" at the time of creation, which is then defined as costing 1 IP...but then, if assignment may happen at any time during your turn, why even mention that it can be done at the time of creation? So if you feel strongly about this you can invoke judgment, and we'll figure it out. Otherwise I guess it's a precedent.

Unit at E12: Raise Skill to level 1. Pay $N25
Unit at E12: Raise Speed to level 1. Pay $N25
Treasure chest at D12

Rolled 1d200 : 178, total 178

Ha ha ha, I'm such a greedy jerk! EFHW, I'm still happy to proximity

Thinking about my proposal, I'll get that up soon.

[Grujah]

Who updates food and skill?

[liopoil]

I was just about to ask that. I updated Grujah's and Walrus's money. (walrus -50, grujah -75)

[WalrusMcFishSr]

OK there's lots of things that could be changed. But I agree with Voltaire that possibly increasing player involvement is the most important issue, because otherwise, we don't have a game at all. We've had a few resigns, and I know I certainly haven't been as active...it'd be a shame to see this sputter out.

So I say let's give each person 1 IP on every player's turn and see what happens. It might be a bit chaotic, but we can work that out as we go...at least it means we could be making meaningful gamestate decisions every week rather than every two months.

I think it would be reasonable to just add one IP at the beginning of each other player's turn (possibly 0.5 IP?), and maintain the clause about having your IPs wiped at the end of your own turn. That way you can miss a few turns and still be OK, but you can't like ultra hoard your IPs over multiple rounds and spend dozens at a time. However you can still proximity only once per turn right now, for example, which rewards more active players.

So how about something like this. I'll leave it up for about 24 hours then post a final tomorrow.

Draft for Rule 364:

At the beginning of each player's turn, each other player's quantity of IPs is increased by one.

Every player with more than zero IPs may be considered an "active" or "current" player for the purposes of spending IPs. However, a player's quantity of IPs is only set to zero at the end of his or her own turn.

[Voltaire]

Who updates food and skill?

My instinct would be Cartographer, since we're currently tracking them on the map.

[Voltaire]

I like it.

[sudgy]

Me too.

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Well I guess I'll propose it then--

Proposal for Rule 364:

At the beginning of each player's turn, each other player's quantity of IPs is increased by one.

Every player with more than zero IPs may be considered an "active" or "current" player for the purposes of spending IPs. However, a player's quantity of IPs is only set to zero at the end of his or her own turn.

---

Vote: Yes on Rule 364

[Jack Rudd]

Vote: Yes on Proposal 364

[mail-mi]

Vote: Yes on Proposal 364

[scott_pilgrim]

Vote: Yes on Proposal 364

[Voltaire]

Vote: Yes on Rule 364

[liopoil]

Vote: Yes on Rule 364