I think non-Proc/Prod facilities would be great. Walls or streets for
example would be cool.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd go with solution 2, but modified. What if we made it so that each
> facility could fit into (0 or more) "categories", and defined Production
> and Processing as categories. That way, we could extend it later without
> dealing with an exponential increase in the number of types. It also leave
> flexibility if we want to do 3 later.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > work.
> > 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.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kenyon
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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