I derped lol. But yeah, I agree with an "other" category.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed with Gaelan re teleporters and ornaments, unless I'm misreading what
> you're saying, Cuddle Beam.
>
> An example of two categories would be a unique (Agoran Monument) production
> facility like a wonder in Civ. You can imagine a race to build it/steal it
> from other players, with whoever has it having an advantage but having to
> work to defend their claim.
>
> Or, imagine you had facilities that could pollute the environment, defining
> a Polluter category and then simply adding all the facilities that caused
> pollution to that category, without having to copy the same rule across
> many locations.
>
> I do think that this is maybe a case of premature optimization and that one
> category would work just as well. I'd be happy to change it if people are
> unconvinced and want the simple version.
>
> Kenyon
>
> On Mar 3, 2018 8:36 AM, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>
> Ornaments and teleporters would both fit in an "other" category—they
> wouldn't need to be both production and processing.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Mar 3, 2018, at 3:37 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suggest adding an example along that extensibility to market the idea
> of
> > it better. Swag purely aesthetics ornaments, walls and teleporters,
> > perhaps? (Not entirely necessary though, it just makes it look better
> > because it has a purpose instead of being blank)
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm happy to admit that I may have been wrong on this one. However,
> >> extensibility is important. I was hoping we could do it in a short
> >> paragraph, not a whole rule. What do you guys think?
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:05 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I think unless we have a
> use
> >>> case for facilities with multiple types, we should just have a simple
> >>> production/processing/{monument,other} option. This is well-written,
> but
> >>> until we need it I think it would be better to avoid the complexity.
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
> >>>> Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
> >>>> text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
> >>>> A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates
> >> it.
> >>>> A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it,
> >>> and
> >>>> may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories
> >>> are
> >>>> defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories
> >> is
> >>>> the null set.
> >>>>
> >>>> A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in
> >> its
> >>>> Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong
> >> to
> >>>> [Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that
> >>> belong
> >>>> to [Category] and no others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the
> >>> following:
> >>>> Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
> >>>> facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
> >>>> possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
> >>>> specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount
> >> of
> >>>> an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
> >>> Production
> >>>> facility is also an Asset Generator facility. 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
> >>> Processing
> >>>> facility is also an Asset Generator 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 refined
> >>>> 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 an Asset Generator
> >>> 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 must permit em to do
> >>>> so.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the
> >>>> facility, or the owner must have consented.
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend "Facility Ranks" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
> >>>> Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting to
> >> 1.
> >>>> Its possible values include all integers between 1 and 5, inclusive.
> >>>>
> >>>> If a facility specifies upgrade costs, a player CAN increase the
> >> rank
> >>>> of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by
> >>>> announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that
> >>>> specific rank. If no upgrade costs are specified for a facility, a
> >>>> player CANNOT increase the rank of that facility unless specified in
> >>>> other rules.
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Facility Colors" (Power=2.0):
> >>>> A facility's Allowed Land Types is a property defined as such,
> >> having
> >>>> allowable values of any set of allowed values of the Land Type
> >> switch,
> >>>> with a default value of {"Black", "White"}. A facility may not have
> >> a
> >>>> Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of their Allowed
> >>>> Land Types. If an action or set of actions would cause a facility to
> >>> be
> >>>> created with a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of
> >>>> its Allowed Land Types, that action or set of actions fails. If a
> >>>> facility's Parent Land Unit's Land Type is flipped to a color that
> >> is
> >>>> not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility, and
> >> anything
> >>>> contained within, is destroyed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Gray Land" (Power=2.0):
> >>>> Gray Land is Land whose Land Type switch is set to "Gray". Gray Land
> >>>> is preserved and owned by Agora. If Land becomes Gray Land, it,
> >> along
> >>>> with any facilities with it as their Parent Land Unit, are
> >> transfered
> >>>> to Agora, and the Land's preservation switch is set to true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Gray Actions" (Power=1.0):
> >>>> Players CAN destroy:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. 1 apple to move from one Gray Land Unit to an adjacent Unit of
> >> any
> >>>> Land Type that is not Aether;
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit of any Land Type to an
> >> adjacent
> >>>> Gray Land Unit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3
> >>>> apples for 1 corn. [Maybe need a good way to say that these actions
> >>> can
> >>>> be combined with actions described in Actions in Arcadia for the
> >>>> purposes of spending corn.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Agoran Monuments" (Power=1.0):
> >>>> Agoran Monument is a Category of facilities. For each type of Agoran
> >>>> Monument facility, there may only be one instance of that facility
> >> in
> >>>> existence at any one time. If an action would cause an Agoran
> >> Monument
> >>>> facility to exist while another Agoran Monument facility of the same
> >>>> type is already in existence, that action fails.
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "The Fountain" (Power=1.0):
> >>>> A fountain is a facility with Allowed Land Types of {"Gray"}, and
> >>>> Categories {Agoran Monument}. A fountain has no upkeep cost.
> >>>>
> >>>> Create a new rule "Wishing Fountain", (Power=1.0):
> >>>> If a player's location is the same as a fountain, e CAN and MAY
> >>> destroy
> >>>> a coin to Throw A Coin into the fountain. This does nothing, unless
> >>>> specified in another Rule. A player MAY announce what e wishes for
> >>> when
> >>>> e Throws A Coin.
> >>>>
> >>>> Set (0, 0)'s Land Type to "Gray".
> >>>> Create a fountain at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Reasons for rules:
> >>>> - "Land Types" needs to be amended to add Gray as a Land Type.
> >>>> - "Facility Categories" is an implementation of Aris' suggestion of
> >>>> defining facility categories.
> >>>> - "Asset Generation with Facilities" is amended to turn production and
> >>>> processing into Categories. The actual rules for specific
> >>>> facilities can be unmodified, I think.
> >>>> - "Facility Ranks" is modified so it's clear what happens if a
> facility
> >>>> doesn't define ranks, like the fountain right now.
> >>>> - "Facility Colors" is Trigon's suggestion of "X facilities"
> >>>> - "Gray Land" defines how Gray Land works, including Trigon's
> >> suggestion
> >>>> of specifying that Gray Land is always preserved.
> >>>> - "Gray Actions" allows walking on Gray Land.
> >>>> - "Agoran Monuments" specifies a Category used for unique structures
> >> that
> >>>> can only exist one place in Arcadia.
> >>>> - "The Fountain" is self explanatory, creates a unique gray fountain.
> >>>> - "Wishing Fountain" is just so fountains have a use, even a useless
> >> one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Corrections, fixes, ideas, etc would all be highly appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kenyon
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
