Oh wait, I see the part that you were talking about. I didn't notice the
bottom section. I apologize.
Re: options 1 and 2: I already stated that they're supposed to be expensive
in order to incentivize putting thought into your actions. The first one
makes that zombie unprofitable for the month while the second one is an
entire land unit which is basically a ton of wasted potential. Perhaps it's
me being protective of my ideas, but I really think it's important to have
the option in case you forget to do a public action and want to keep the
zombie. But it is indeed easily scammable. I could just say that you need
to transfer it to Agora, which fixes the problem of scamming. That's
probably the best and least complicated option other than outright
deletion. But for option 1, those don't get refunded back into the Agoran
economy, which what I wanted to happen. For option 2, definitely, but I'm
still reserved about option 1. I guess everyone should just give me
feedback.
Re: not scary: it might not be scary but I wanted to keep the fantastic Boo
Lien pun :D
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:43 Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a
> nice way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
