Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

G. is spot on here, but I want to offer some clarifications. The reason this is done in such a roundabout way is that I wanted to encourage more actual playing. Option 2 exists because I wanted a way to republicize land. Option 1 exists to get currencies in the hands of more people. If something

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners, using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary". I think a simple "pay N to a

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely get the point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT. On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough compensation for all the power zombies

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

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

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

Nice, but I'd think my point about collusion was the most important... Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley 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,

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

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 wrote: > That wasn't really my most important point. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sun, 22 Apr

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

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,

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

The intent of the first two were to be a last resort, in case you forget to pay all the zombies' scare debt. They're supposed to be unbalanced. On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 16:49 Corona wrote: > Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't >

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

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 wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > I remember

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

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:

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 15:39 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > 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

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't possibly benefit the giving player, unlike the others, which can, indirectly. ~Corona On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I remember someone saying that scary public actions