That wasn't really my most important point.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've now
gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next time.
Just shush.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
such players.
For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
"player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
is in."
I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
calculated and thus cannot be flipped.
Also, this is simply graph theory:
{{{
The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the players,
and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them has
the other set as their master switch.
For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who is
in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound player"
a player who is not.
}}}
Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
that entity SHALL do one of the following:
1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
unbound players;
2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
unit by at least 1;
5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow them
to benefit only each other.
And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".
Greetings,
Ørjan.
