On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that
> will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the part of inactive
> players. I believe I've mentioned this before in this thread,
> actually. I did want to give everyone the same amount of assets a
> week, but I was scared that inactive people would get a ton of wealth
> and, if they ever decided to rejoin the game, they would be much more
> wealthy than the active people, so that makes no sense.
Just two clarifications that may make all the difference? In my
recent Shinies Proposal:
1. I change it to distribute shinies Monthly, not Weekly.
2. I jigger the prices to make things *much* more expensive. On a base
salary, you'd only get 2 Proposals per *month*, instead of the current
2-per-week AP + often dirt-cheap shiny pending prices.
So if people are going to ignore the Land and just use shinies, they'll
have to budget carefully over a month and their options are vastly
reduced. If accumulation is becoming a problem, we can react to it on
a scale of months not weeks (i.e. we have plenty of time to fix it
before the next amount of shinies gets distributed).
Also, the new combo of Zombies + deregistration w/Agoran Consent will
vastly reduce the inactive player impact, as we just witnessed.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that
> will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the part of inactive
> players. I believe I've mentioned this before in this thread,
> actually. I did want to give everyone the same amount of assets a
> week, but I was scared that inactive people would get a ton of wealth
> and, if they ever decided to rejoin the game, they would be much more
> wealthy than the active people, so that makes no sense.
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > 1. every player with an amount of papers less than 2 an amount of
> >> > papers so that eir paper balance is equal to 2.
> >> >
> >> > [ This makes it so that impoverished players can move a little each week
> >> > and make some proposals. ]
> >>
> >> I now present the Aris Asset Holding Contract (AAHC):
> >>
> >> {Aris CAN amend, repeal, or retitle this contract by announcement.
> >> This contract accepts all assets. Aris can cause this contract to
> >> transfer any asset in its possession by announcement.}
> >>
> >> Then I transfer all of my papers and apples to the AAHC every week.
> >> I'm not really sure how to get around this problem without using
> >> something along the lines of effective control (see the blue cards
> >> rule).
> >
> > Needs-based supply for the "poor" is one of the big failings of the
> > current system, to get rid of. Just give everyone something each X,
> > but less (e.g. 2/month, not 2/week).
> >
> > Even without the hole you mention, this ends the economy in terms
> > of playing it. 2 paper/week is more than I need, you give it back
> > when I use it, I never have to participate. Give everyone 2/month,
> > regardless of need, and they need to budget, and then to earn
> > more they need to participate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Trigon
>
