I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much. In a 
“traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In Agora, 
however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the opposite of 
what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much to make wins 
rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if anyone else feels like 


> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
> many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
> stop, a sort of win inflation?)
> Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
> the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
> inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game design
> to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
> mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and what
> they have meant to us until now.
> (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit better
> before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I want
> to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
> similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
>> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
>> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
>> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
>> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
>>> wins
>>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
>>>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>>>> someone's done it first the method's gone.
>>>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
>>>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>>>>> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>>>>> When one or more players win the game:
>>>>> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>>> cancelled.
>>>>> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
>>>> are destroyed.
>>>>> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
>>>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>>> win,
>>>> excluding the White ribbon.
>>>>> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>>>> recordkeeping]
>>>>> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
>>>>> —
>>>>> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>>>> incentive to stop it
>>>>> Gaelan

Reply via email to