This particular tempo for the game and its wins is what makes Agora very
appealing to me. We already have Blognomic for constant competitive play,
and we could just propose here "Competition Month" or something. I wouldn't
feel like changing something this "fundamental" to that tempo would be good
- but I would very much enjoy a temporary "ay, lets all friggin compete
mofos, it's TIME!" thing.

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:

> 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 this.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > 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