On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to
> put together a proto-proposal to see what others think.
>
> Title: Amulets ver. 0.1
> AI: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s):
Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's
discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it
destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of
limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact.
I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets,
and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to
violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should
be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical
notes:
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be
> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type,
> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.
>
> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player
> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at
> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
> transferred.
Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a
new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the
Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a
good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off.
There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you
define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier
in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same
time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact
if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player
CANNOT *put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it
to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another
amulet." Though that sounds awkward.
What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping,
using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns,
but they still get a lot of power that way.
>
> If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive,
> then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player.
> If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active,
> then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to
> occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless
> specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most
> recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its
> cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed.
>
> If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an
> active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is
> considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT
> be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by
> announcement.
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text:
> The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects:
>
> - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
> the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point.
>
> - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
> the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone.
>
> - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran
> week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant.
>
> - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
> the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote.
>
> - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this
> amulet earns an additional 10 coins.
Making these passive makes them actually very powerful. One of these
gives you 12 products by the time is expires, which is more than you get
from 4 cards.
>
> The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects:
>
> - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify
> at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from
> this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of
> that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to
> Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified,
> even if e has already earned cards of a different type.
>
> - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting
> strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two.
Not sure this one works because of the weird way voting strength is
calculated. I ran into the same issue when making Extra Votes. Even
though this is a higher tier than the Amulet of Voting, it actually
produces less voting power before expiring.
>
> - Amulet of Pending (active): Upon activation, the Pended switch of
> any specified proposal is flipped to True.
>
> The following is a list of tier-3 amulet types and their effects:
>
> - Ultimate Amulet (active): Upon activation, the wearer earns any 3
> cards of eir choice. The cards chosen can be all the same type or
> different.
>
> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Auctions" with the following text:
> Each tier of amulet has an "ideal number" of that tier of amulet
> that should be maintained in existence. The ideal number of tier-1
> amulets is 7; the ideal number of tier-2 amulets is 4; and the ideal
> number of tier-3 amulets is 1.
>
> If there are fewer amulets of at least one amulet tier in existence
> than that tier's ideal number, then the Treasuror CAN initiate an
> auction for new amulets ("amulet auction") if e has not already done
> so in the current month. The Treasuror SHALL do so in a timely
> fashion after the beginning of the month if e is able to do so.
>
> The lots of an amulet auction shall be determined as follows: For
> each tier of amulet, if the number of amulets of that tier in
> existence is lower than the ideal number of that tier of amulets, a
> lot will contain a new amulet of any type in that tier.
>
> In addition, if the number of tier-1 amulets in existence is less
> than the ideal number of tier-1 amulets by at least two, an
> additional lot for a tier-1 amulet shall be created.
>
> When choosing amulet types for amulet auctions, the Treasuror SHOULD
> avoid creating more than two of the same type of amulet. E SHOULD
> choose amulet types that are not currently in existence, if
> possible.
>
> [Potential issues with this proposal currently:
> - Any general issues in wording that may cause bugs (I'm sure there are
> some)
> - The wording of amulet auctions is really clunky right now
> - More amulet types would be good
> - I worry that most of the tier-1 amulets aren't balanced right now. I
> intitially had them giving a card a week, but that was far too
> powerful. I changed it to just be a product a week instead. I still
> feel like that might be too overpowered. I could make it a
> product/card a month, but then the lifespan of only 3 months makes
> them practically pointless. Maybe tier-1 amulets could last longer
> than the others?]
I think the appropriate amount of product or cards will be more obvious
when we've seen gameplay for a while.
--
nch
Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
