I ran into a problem that I figured I'd share and ask for input.

"Asset Generation with Facilities" specifies that "Each facility is either
a production facility or processing facility". The draft up there specifies
that a fountain is a facility, but that it neither produces nor processes
anything. There are a couple solutions that I see:

1) A fountain is a production facility that produces nothing, or a
processing facility that processes nothing. Easy, kinda a hack, but it'll
2) Modify "Asset Generation with Facilities" so facilities can have a type
of any element in {None, Production, Processing, Production & Processing},
and fountains are type None.
3) Define "buildings" as a superset/superclass of facilities, move the
shared rules to new rules about Buildings, and have fountain and facility
be types of buildings with their own specific sub-rules. Easily the most
flexible, but requires a fairly significant refactor, so it only really
seems worth it if this is going to be a recurring problem. If the fountain
is the only non-facility-facility we add, we might as well go with 1 or 2.
If we're adding a ton of non-production buildings (arenas, houses, roads,
whatever) then this might be worth it?

Not sure if there's a smarter solution here, but I just wanted to get
feedback to see if people were OK with 1 or if they thought 2 and 3 were
better, or if there's another option I didn't consider.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>

> Comments inline.
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I like this. I'll have more detailed comments when it's typed up in a
> > proposal, but I think that this fits with the spirit of what we're going
> > for. Certainly it is a good idea to have a neutral spawn point, even if
> the
> > colors don't mean that much yet. I suggest just calling the facility type
> > "fountain", and letting people refer to it as "the fountain", because
> > there's only one. You could even make it an explicit singleton. Something
> > to the effect of "There is a unique facility, know as 'the fountain', and
> > (0, 0). It... <properties>." I'd also suggest not referencing
> >  Rule 2029 by number (and definitely don't include the revision id).
> > Instead, either just say "the town fountain", or let people figure it out
> > for themselves (my personal favored option).
> I agree with everything Aris said here.
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:05 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> A very rough draft for a proposal. I'm going to hold off on writing it
> up
> >> until the current mess is resolved, but I wanted to get feedback on
> whether
> >> the idea is interesting to people
> >>
> >> The proposal would: {
> >>
> >> Create a Land Type of "Gray". Land that has Land Type "Gray" is gray
> land.
> >>
> >> Gray land cannot support any facilities except those specifically
> stated to
> >> be allowed on gray land. If land becomes gray land, any facilities on it
> >> are destroyed, except for those specifically stated to be allowed on
> gray
> >> land.
> Maybe to avoid redundancy, you could term these facilities "gray
> facilities". Or even make a rule that says "X facilities" where X is a
> land type in case we decide to restrict the land types some facilities
> can be on in the future.
> >> Gray land cannot be owned by any entity other than Agora. If land
> becomes
> >> Gray land, it is transfered to Agora.
> *transferred. Maybe also say that Gray land is always preserved. That
> way, no one can modify any of the facilities on the gray land.
> >> Gray land is treated as "the same" as both white and black for the
> purposes
> >> of movement, ie it only costs one apple to move from any non-aether
> land to
> >> gray, and only one apple to move from gray to any non-aether land.
> >>
> >> Set (0, 0) to Gray land.
> >>
> >> Create a new facility type "the fountain". Only one the fountain may
> exist
> >> at any one time. The fountain may exist on gray land, and may only
> exist on
> >> gray land. Players MAY and SHOULD think of this fountain as referring to
> >> the one depicted in Rule 2029/0 "Town Fountain". The fountain may only
> be
> >> owned by Agora. The fountain has no upkeep cost, and neither refines nor
> >> produces anything, except as specified in other proposals.
> Just "Fountain" please.
> >> Create a "the fountain" at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> My goal with the draft was to to;
> >> 1) make the number of preserved squares each color had equal.
> >> 2) To ensure that the spawn at (0,0) was neutral to both colors (right
> now,
> >> a player residing on one of the colors has to spend an extra apple to
> move
> >> back home as compared to somebody residing equally far on the other
> color).
> >> 3) To provide a meeting ground for players for future rules to use. One
> >> could imagine a rule specifying that all players at (0,0) on Agora's
> >> Birthday CAN [do something]. Or this could be integrated into the
> justice
> >> reform; to rid themselves of weevils/blots/whatever, players must make a
> >> pilgrimage to the fountain to give [currency].
> Very nice. Perhaps Cuddlebeam's idea for arenas could have a physical
> manifestation on a piece of gray land. This also makes it really nice
> for future Agora-sponsored activities that take place on a map.
> --
> Trigon

Reply via email to