Why? It's a standard character with a somewhat standardized meaning and as long as it is used consistently no problems should arise.
On 11/21/2017 11:43 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I should mention: while using the Æ symbol is cute and all, it's > likely that it would rack up a few CFJs about whether you're referring > to Aether or something else entirely that doesn't exist. > > On 11/21/2017 1:38 PM, Corona wrote: >> Sorry for the walls of text; if you don't understand anything, I'll >> be happy to clarify. >> >> About it being rushed - A reform that could singlehandedly determine >> the (un)balance of Agora will never be prepared enough, if we want to >> release it in a (kind of) timely manner. >> >> That's why we should partially leave it to the Agoran legislative >> process, fixing it as we go. >> >> After all, it is impossible for this law to introduce a complete >> economy, as that depends on all the assets one can buy, and not only >> would the reform get bogged down by writing out every asset to be >> available for purchase, it will also be easier to imagine how will a >> new asset interact with the rest of the economy if one can see that >> economy in practice. >> >> Anyways, here are my thoughts: >> >> On 11/19/17, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> This is still pretty rough around the edges with the new mechanics. >>> >>> Title: Putting Agora on a Map v3 >>> Author: Trigon >>> Co-Authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada >>> AI: 2 >>> >>> [ Version 3: So this is Go + Settlers of Catan + some RPG mechanics >>> now. >>> It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Also: two drafts >>> in one day YEET! ] >>> >>> [ PART I: Removing and Changing Stuff ] >>> >>> Repeal rules 2488, 2489, 2490, and 2491. >>> >>> [ I honestly tried to keep the estates, but these changes are so >>> radical >>> that it wouldn't be compatible. ] >>> >>> Repeal rule 2500. >>> >>> Amend rule 2445 by replacing the second paragraph and subsequent list >>> with: >>> >>> Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" >>> by announcement by spending 1 paper. >>> >>> Amend rule 991 by removing the first two items of the list directly >>> following the first paragraph, and replacing them with the following >>> list item: >>> >>> a) by announcement by spending 1 paper, OR >>> >>> [ Everyone wants to get rid of these so okay, let's do it. ] >>> >>> Repeal rules 2483, 2487, and 2497. >>> >>> [ No more shinies, everybody! ] >>> >>> Amend rule 2516 by replacing it in full with: >>> >>> At the beginning of the Agoran week, the Treasuror CAN and SHALL >>> cause Agora to create in: >>> >>> 1. every player with an amount of papers less than 2 an amount of >>> papers so that eir paper balance is equal to 2. >>> >>> 2. every player with an amount of apples less than 4 an amount of >>> apples so that eir apple balance is equal to 4. >>> >>> [ This makes it so that impoverished players can move a little each >>> week >>> and make some proposals. ] >>> >> >> *I'd wager that players will set up contracts, allowing them to >> receive state aid even when they are fabulously wealthy, and it's not >> like you can just raise the price of contracts, which should be cheap. >> To avoid cluttering up reports with such contracts, you might as well >> give every player a flat 2 paper & 4 apples/week. > > Aris already pointed this out and flat rates were also discussed. > >> It is never a bad thing to have more poverty/powerlessness prevention >> mechanisms, and one occured to me, "scavenging for apples": >> >> A player can, on any Land Unit, start scavenging for apples by >> announcement. While scavenging for apples, e gains one apple after >> every 24 hours of scavenging. A player ceases scavenging if: >> -E changes location or takes any other map-altering action (building >> facilities etc.) >> -E has been scavenging for 7 days (to discourage idling). >> >> Maybe there should also be an indestructible lv1 mine or orchard at >> 0,0 so that impoverished players can get lumber/stone, with which they >> can build a facility to create the other. > As I've already said in this thread, hopefully there will be a whole > list of Land Units that are protected from the normal Land Unit > effecting processes. > >> >>> Amend rule 2599 by replacing the second paragraph with: >>> >>> When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the >>> following assets in eir possession: >>> >>> 1. 20 coins >>> 2. 5 lumber >>> 3. 5 stones >>> 4. 10 apples >>> 5. 5 papers >>> >>> [PART II: Making Land] >>> >>> Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text: >>> >>> Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map). >>> The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units. >>> >>> The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of >>> Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset >>> specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and >>> Longitude. >>> >>> Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in >>> the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of >>> Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be >>> created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and >>> Longitude defined in the Rules. >>> >>> All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9, >>> inclusive. >>> >>> The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of >>> Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs. >> >> *That is _361_ ! There is a reason why Go is often played (when >> practicing) on smaller boards - this is huge for just 10-20 players, >> even if half of it is Æther. There are 2 issues I see: >> >> 1) It takes 18 moves to get to a corner from the center, assuming no >> obstacles. Unless more movement abilities are legislated soon, I'd fix >> this by allowing the players to walk diagonally, this also allows for >> more manoeuvrability - if you can move just to "adjacent" points, are >> moving straight west and a single-point obstacle is in your path, you >> have to move north-west-west-south to avoid it, using 2 extra moves. > > This way, obstacles are no longer obstacles. If there is a unit of > Aether and you need to move from the west of it to the east of it, you > could move northeast, then southeast. If the unit of Aether was not > there, then it you could just go east, then east. Yes, it provides > more maneuverability, but I'm not sure that's what you want. > >> 2) Players, IMO, should have to compete over land. This way, everyone >> can just go to eir own part of the world, and have enough space for >> all the facilities there. This is a part of what I think is the >> biggest issue overall - hardly anybody will want to buy land. > > So it needs to be more competitive? How about if we change the size to > 9x9, another common Go board size? That's only 81 units. > >> With comfortable distances between players, players will just build on >> public land, because it's cheaper and going to another player's >> facilities to steal eir $$$ will cost more (apples) than just >> producing it yourself. Also, if everyone has space to build all kinds >> of buildings, they need not trade for anything. > > Not necessarily. Public facilities cannot be leveled up, since a > player must own Land Units to rank them up. Higher ranks are vastly > more profitable. They're also communal, so it's a first-come, > first-serve system. > >> This could be fixed by introducing traversable Land Types (e.g. >> "wasteland", "ocean"...) that cannot be built on, or by allowing >> facilities to be built only on resources - either Land Types (which >> would ruin the Go part) or fixed coordinates - e.g. the north has lots >> of metal veins, and the south has fertile land, so they have to trade >> lumber for coins* > > I actually like the Land Type idea. Perhaps refinery facilities can > only be built on one Type, and production facilities can only be built > on the other. > >>> >>> Re-enact rule 1994/0 (Power=2) "Ownership of Land" with the text: >>> >>> Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly >>> changed belongs to Agora. >>> >>> Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to >>> a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other >>> entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private >>> Land are called Proprietary Land. >>> >>> Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text: >>> >>> Each Unit of Land has a single Land Type. Changes to Land Type are >>> secured. In addition to Aether, the Land types Black and White are >>> defined. >>> >>> The phrase "Units of X", where X is a Land Type defined by the >>> Rules, is considered a synonym for "Units of Land that have Land >>> Type (or Subtype) X" >>> >>> When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly >>> permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently >>> defined by the Rules, it is considered to have the Land Type of >>> Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of Aether >>> CANNOT be transferred from Agora, or owned by any entity other >>> than Agora. If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor >>> SHALL transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion. >>> >>> When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type >>> chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous >>> alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types >>> alternate between Black and White. In a timely fashion after a >>> Player notifies the Cartographor of an act that specifies an >>> alternating Land Type, the Cartographor MUST announce which Land >>> Type was used for that act. >> >> *Also, players should specify the assumed Land Type in their message >> (and the next alternating LT?), because so many actions depend on this >> that it would be burdensome to stop the play and wait for the >> Cartographor every time - players should continue under the assumption >> that the creating player was right about what Land Type e had created, >> and the Cartographor should just retroactively confirm the types. > > Okay, makes sense. > >> And what if the players were wrong about the Types used in their >> actions? Either it would be ILLEGAL to make a move based on a mistaken >> assumption of the current Alternating Land Type, and cards would be >> issued, or it would be IMPOSSIBLE, and the whole map would be rolled >> back... probably the first one.* > Excuse me? Why on earth would it be ILLEGAL to move to a Land Unit > based on a mistaken assumption? If you ended up spending the wrong > amount of apples/corn to move there, then the action would fail. And > no, the map wouldn't have to be rolled back, the offending player's > action would just fail. > > If this didn't answer your question, then I obviously didn't > understand it. > >>> Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with >>> the text: >>> >>> The Cartographor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the >>> Land of Arcadia. >>> >>> The Cartographor's Weekly Report shall include: >>> >>> 1. the ownership and land type of all existing land; >>> 2. all changes in the ownership and land type of existing land >>> since the most recent report; >>> 3. the location for the previous week and the current week of each >>> entity or instrument with a defined location; >>> 4. all patches and their constituents; and >>> 5. all facilities and their parent patches. >>> >>> [ I renamed this from "Mapkeepor" to "Cartographor" because that's >>> not a >>> good name for a thing. Yes, I know that the Cartographor existed >>> before as part of a different system, but it's unlikely any of that'll >>> be coming back. ] >>> >>> Re-enact rule 1998/2 (Power=1) "Land Topology" with the text: >>> >>> Two Units of Land are Adjacent if they have the same Latitude, and >>> their Longitudes differ by exactly one; or they have the same >>> Longitude, and their Latitudes differ by exactly one. >>> >>> [ Penguin Distance is never referenced again, so I got rid of it. ] >>> >>> Two Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type of >>> Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit to the second >>> by only travelling over Land of that specific Type. >> >> *Travelling should be rigorously defined. If players acquire pegasi to >> be able to travel over Æther, this should not affect connectivity. >> Also, situations may arise (one-way wormhole etc.) where travelling is >> one direction only. A more flexible definition would be: >> >> Land Unit a,b is said to be connected to Land Unit c,d if it is >> possible, to reach c,d by moving an imaginary entity to adjacent Land >> Units of the same color, starting at a,b. > > This is a better definition, but I object a little bit to the phrase > "imaginary entity". > >> Wait a moment, how did you intend this to work? Can two White Land >> Units be ever connected by Black Land Units, or can LUs be connected >> only by their own color?* > > The way this rule is structured, a white and a black land unit could > not be connected. A more flexible definition would allow land units to > be connected by any criteria. > >>> Re-enact rule 1999/0 (Power=1) "Entity Location" with the text: >>> >>> Every Player has a single defined Location corresponding to a >>> single Longitude, Latitude pair. >>> >>> No other Entity can have a location unless it is defined in a rule >>> other than this one. Changes to the Location of an Entity are >>> secured. If an Entity is specified by this Rule as having a >>> defined Location, but its Location has not been explicity set or >>> changed, its Location is set to (0, 0). >> >> *Typo: explicitLy.* >> >>> >>> Re-enact rule 2003/11 (Power=1) "Actions in Arcadia" with the text: >>> >>> Players CAN destroy: >>> >>> 1. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their >>> Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether; >>> >>> 2. 2 apples to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if >>> their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; >>> >>> 3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any >>> Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at >>> that Land Unit. >> >> *Also, a contract's Land Unit, if e has been permitted by the contract >> to do so? Also, there may be strategic reason for turning one's own >> land into Æther, such as creating a supporting Æther LU for your other >> LUs, preventing their "capture", so why not allow it? > > Because I didn't think of it? I just did a C-c, C-v from the old rules > and updated the text to a new mindset. > >> While you can't remove your stones in Go, you can't capture your >> opponent's "living" formation by plugging up one of its "eyes" with a >> stone of eir color either.* > Please don't introduce eyes as a mechanic. This reform is too complex > as it is. > >>> 4. 3 apples or 1 corn to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit >>> that is adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type >>> Aether, and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. The >>> Cartographor SHALL make the random determination. The >>> Cartographor CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion, announce which >>> Land Unit, if any, is changed by this action. This action has >>> no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. >> >> *Why in the name of the Nine Hells is this random? It will introduce >> day-long delays, enable the Cartographor to cheat, and, more >> importantly, create ambiguities as to whether one can move there etc. >> until the Cartographor generates the result. > > Ask one of these fine people: > > Created by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001 > Amended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001 > Amended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001 > Amended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002 > Amended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 > Amended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002 > Amended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002 > Amended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002 > > I'd say that I don't make the rules, but I literally do, so... > > But thanks for the suggestions for actions here. These will most > likely be implemented in the future. > >> If you think it would be OP if not random, just make it more >> expensive. Also, it's probably one of the most important & frequent >> actions in the game, given that land will turn to Æther every month* >> >>> >>> 5. 4 to set the Land Type of eir current location to any Land Type >>> of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is >>> owned by Agora. >>> >>> 6. 6 to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether >>> to an alternating Land Type. >> >> *This much power projection feels scary. It would suck to have a level >> 4 facility on a dearly bought Land Unit just to have it nuked by you, >> while sitting comfortably in your base. Perhaps the cost should scale >> with distance? > > Perhaps the action should be removed entirely. This is definitely way > too overpowering. > >> More importantly: the amount of destruction you can lay to your fellow >> players' land & facilities (by turning the Æther around them to >> Black/White) is directly proportional to the number of apples you >> have, which depends on your economy, which IMO creates a strong >> feedback loop.* > > The prices can always be changed if it gets out of time, and > proportional economies don't seem to work (see also: the entirety of > the shinies mechanic). > >>> Re-enact rule 2004/3 (Power=1) "Land Auctions" with the text: >>> >>> Every Agoran Week, if the number of units of Private Land is less >>> than one half the total number of units of Land, an auction SHALL >>> be initiated. For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor, >>> the auctioneer is the Cartographor, the lots are chosen as such: >>> >>> 1. if there exist at least 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the >>> possession of Agora: any 3 such Units of Land, to be chosen by >>> the Cartographor; >>> >>> 2. if there exist fewer than 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the >>> possession of Agora: all such Units; >>> >>> and the minimum bid is 1 coin. >> >> *I'd say we want to encourage proprietary land ownership, because >> that's the point of having land ownership in the first place. I'd put >> up 5 units for auction every week. It's not like it'll be a disaster >> if all land becomes proprietary, it will eventually get Ætherified, >> and players will trade anyways. >> >> Actually, I think 0,0 should always belong to Agora, as it's >> indestructible and a respawn point.* > > It actually was in the original rules. > >>> Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with >>> the text: >>> >>> During the second week of each Agoran Month, the Cartographor >>> SHALL perform the following actions in sequence, and report these >>> changes in a timely fashion: >>> >>> 1. Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0) that is not directly >>> connected to a unit of Aether, or is not connected by its own >>> type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether. >>> >>> 2. Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed >>> shall have their locations set to 0,0. >> >> *This could be more general (to allow for easier implementation of >> actions that might move players/change Land Types), e.g. Whenever a >> player's location is a Land Unit of the Æther Type (or outside any >> defined Land Units), eir location is set to 0,0 immediately* > > Probably a good idea. > >>> 3. If any land unit so transformed is not property of Agora, it >>> becomes property of Agora. >>> >>> [PART III: Creating Facilities] >>> >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Facilities" with the text: >>> >>> Facilities are liquid assets tracked by the Cartographor. In order >>> for a facility to exist, it MUST be built on a Land Unit. Only one >>> facility is allowed per Land Unit. >>> >>> A player CAN create a facility by announcement by specifying which >>> Land e wants to build it on, specifying which type of facility e >>> intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost. >> >> *Mistake: Land _Unit_ e wants to build it on. >> >> I'd allow building only in your current location, and forbid building >> on proprietary land without permission. > > That's what I intended to have happen, but it never got added because > of classic organization troubles. > >> And to discourage from building facilities on public land (which would >> be too easy, and, again, makes owning land kind of moot), I'd have the >> Cartographor charge rent fees every month for facilities built on >> public land* > > You're not supposed to be able to build on public land. > >>> If a player owns any facilities with upkeep costs, e shall pay >>> them before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do >>> this destroys the facility. In the second to last week of the >>> Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHALL issue a humiliating public >>> reminder to all those who have not paid upkeep fees on any of eir >>> facilities. >>> >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Asset Generation with Facilities" with the >>> text: >>> >>> When facilities create assets, the assets are added to the >>> facility's possession. The rule that creates a facility CAN >>> specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the >>> amount of an asset in the possession of a facility exceeds that >>> asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed >>> until the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility >>> is equal to its carrying capacity. >>> >>> Each facility is either a production facility or processing >>> facility, to be specified in the rule that creates them. At the >>> end of every Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a >>> production facility specified by the rule which creates the >>> facility. >>> >>> At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable >>> assets in the possession of each processing facility that that >>> facility can change into refinable assets and replaces them with a >>> corresponding number of refined assets to be specified by the rule >>> that creates the facility. >>> >>> A player can take a number of assets from a facility's inventory >>> by announcement if eir location is the same as the facility's and >>> the following criteria are met: >>> >>> 1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none. >>> >>> 2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to >>> that contract and the text of the contract cannot prohibit >>> doing so. >>> >>> 3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the >>> facility. >> >> *Or e could have permission (by announcement) from the owner?* > > Maybe. > >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Facility Ranks" with the text: >>> >>> Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting >>> to 0. Its possible values include all integers between 0 and 4, >>> inclusive. >>> >>> A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns by >>> announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that >>> specific rank. >>> >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Varieties of Facilities" with the text: >>> >>> For the purposes of this rule, the variable n is equivalent to the >>> rank of the facility, plus one. >> >> *Wouldn't it be more intuitive if facilities started at lv1 and n was >> the facility level?* > > shh > >>> >>> The following facilities are defined as production facilities: >>> >>> 1. Mines >>> - Build Cost: 5 lumber >>> - Upkeep Cost: none >>> - Production Details: 3n stones and 2n ore. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 3 coins, 2 lumber >>> - Rank 2: 4 coins, 4 lumber >>> - Rank 3: 5 coins, 4 lumber, 3 stones >>> - Rank 4: 6 coins, 6 lumber, 6 stones, 2 fabric >>> >>> 2. Orchards >>> - Build Cost: 5 stones >>> - Upkeep Cost: none >>> - Production Details: 2n apples and 4n lumber. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 3 coins, 2 stones >>> - Rank 2: 4 coins, 4 stones >>> - Rank 3: 5 coins, 4 stones, 3 lumber >>> - Rank 4: 6 coins, 6 stones, 6 lumber, 2 fabric >> >> *Why does this produce so few apples, which are essential even for >> just walking around facilities and collecting stuff? I think 3n apples >> & 3n lumber would be better.* > > Because all of these values are experimental. No one has really > criticized these numbers, so they never got changed. > >>> 3. Farms >>> - Build Cost: 3 lumber and 4 stones >>> - Upkeep Cost: none >>> - Production Details: 4n corn and 3n cotton. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 4 coins, 2 lumber, 2 stones >>> - Rank 2: 5 coins, 4 lumber, 2 stones >>> - Rank 3: 6 coins, 4 lumber, 4 stones, 2 fabric >>> - Rank 4: 7 coins, 6 lumber, 4 stones, 3 fabric >>> >>> The following facilities are defined as processing facilities: >>> >>> 1. Refineries >>> - Build Cost: 4 lumber and 8 stones >>> - Upkeep Cost: 2 coins >>> - Processing Details: 1 ore to 2n+5 coins. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 5 coins, 2 lumber, 3 stones >>> - Rank 2: 6 coins, 4 lumber, 4 stones >>> - Rank 3: 7 coins, 4 lumber, 3 stones, 3 fabric >>> - Rank 4: 8 coins, 6 lumber, 6 stones, 4 fabric >> >> *Surely you mean 1n ore?* > > Indeed. > >>> >>> 2. Mills >>> - Build Cost: 6 lumber and 6 stones >>> - Upkeep Cost: 2 coins >>> - Processing Details: 1 lumber to 5 paper. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 6 coins, 3 lumber, 3 stones >>> - Rank 2: 7 coins, 4 lumber, 5 stones >>> - Rank 3: 8 coins, 5 lumber, 5 stones, 3 fabric >>> - Rank 4: 9 coins, 6 lumber, 7 stones, 5 fabric >> >> *Don't forget your N's - 1n lumber to 5n paper, right?* > > Uh, no. I only want people to have to input 1 lumber all the time, but > I'm a little scared of adding n times the amount of paper per rank, so > I was kind of deliberating over how I wanted to do it. I think this > was supposed to be 5+n paper. > >>> 3. Looms >>> - Build Cost: 8 lumber and 4 stones >>> - Upkeep Cost: 2 coins >>> - Processing Details: 1 cotton to 5 cloth. >>> - Upgrade Costs: >>> - Rank 1: 6 coins, 3 lumber, 2 stones >>> - Rank 2: 7 coins, 4 lumber, 3 stones, 3 fabric >>> - Rank 3: 8 coins, 5 lumber, 4 stones, 5 fabric >>> - Rank 4: 9 coins, 6 lumber, 5 stones, 7 fabric >> >> *1n cotton to 5n _fabric_, as you refer to it elsewhere. Also, the >> processed materials seem weirdly abundant. With a rank 2 loom you can >> make 10 fabric/week, probably enough for upgrading all your facilities >> to rank 4. > > You're not supposed to be able to do that, as I already said. That > would unbalance the system way too much. Perhaps 5+n would also work > here. > >> Also, I think upkeep should definitely scale with rank, perhaps even >> polynomially, because that would make choosing whether to upgrade or >> not interesting - upgraded facilities take up less land than multiple >> low-level facilities (you spend less apples running aroud collecting >> and have to protect less LUs from being "captured"), on the other hand >> they would have more upkeep per unit produced. > > Probably they should. > >> Finally, upgrading feels too passive, you just wait and run around >> collecting resources, not interacting with other players much. What >> if, for example, upgrading to the final level of a facility required >> an Energy Crystal, of which there would always be 30 instances. It >> would be initially distributed or auctioned off to players, and >> building any lv 4 facility would cost one. When such a facility would >> be destroyed (by turning its Land Unit into Æther), the crystal would >> be given to the nearest player. - This would necessitate trading or >> raiding to create (more) lv 4 facilities. > > Maybe so. I feel like this is material worthy of a different proposal, > though. > >>> [ All the values in this section are experimental; feel free to contest >>> any or all of my decisions. ] >>> >>> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Economics" with the text: >>> >>> The following currencies are defined, and are tracked by the >>> Treasuror: >>> >>> 1. ore >>> 2. stones >>> 3. lumber >>> 4. apples >>> 5. cotton >>> 6. corn >>> 7. coins >>> 8. papers >>> 9. fabric >> >> *TBH, most of the currencies (except apples) feel kind of the same, >> like, every building costs some of each resource, and you have to >> produce/trade everything roughly equally, and you don't need to trade >> much, because you can build any type of facility anywhere. > > Hopefully this will sort itself out in the future when people start > proposing more assets along the same vein as these nine, so > specialization can start. I want to keep it minimal at the beginning. > >> I'd like if it were more like e.g. Catan, where you build lots of >> cities if you have good access to rock and straw, and focus more on >> villages otherwise. >> >> On the other hand, the resources will probably be differentiated >> enough by the other things one will be able to purchase.* >> >>> >>> [ Probably not all of these will be managed by the Treasuror, but it >>> all >>> depends on where the discussion takes us over the next few days.] >>> >>> Stones, apples, and corn are considered unrefinable currencies; >>> ore, lumber, and cotton are considered refinable currencies; and >>> coins, papers, and fabric are considered refined currencies. >>> >>> Coins are the official currency of Agora. >>> >>> [ TODO: Remove references to shinies in the ruleset and replace them >>> with the new currencies. ] >>> >>> Set the land type of all land units that lie withing the region from >>> (-2, -2) to (+2, +2) to White. Create the following facilities: >>> >>> - Four mines at (-2, -2), (-2, +2), (+2, -2), and (+2, +2). >>> - Four orchards at (-1, -2), (-1, +2), (+1, -2), and (+1, +2). >>> - Four farms at (-2, -1), (-2, +1), (+2, -1), and (+2, +1). >> >> *Specify that these belong to Agora. (And that Agora doesn't have to >> pay upkeep to itself for facilities it owns?)* > > Well, even if Agora does have to pay upkeep, e can just create assets > anyways, so... > >>> >>> Set the locations of all players to (0, 0). >>> >>> Make Trigon the Cartographor. >>> >>> [ Someone else can take this job if they want. I just put my name in >>> because I know that I will indeed take the job. ] >>> >>> -- >>> Trigon >>> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> > -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
