Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
I suppose having Corona get seven land units every two weeks is preferable to five every week. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:56 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > There's good aspects to both methods. > How about an alternating thing: switch auction types every other auction. > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Specifically in reference to G.'s third point here, you can go ahead and > > propose a single auction switch and you would likely get plenty of votes. > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:43 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 1. It was thought that being able to target land units you actually > > > wanted geographically was better for strategy and would promote > > > interesting auctions (you could decide to bid a lot for land units > > > close to the center or less for units on the periphery). > > > > > > 2. It gave a big advantage to people with zombies who could place > > > multiple bids (that can be fixed but it wasn't at the time). That's > > > in part how Corona's monopoly started. > > > > > > 3. Not everyone agreed with the change. > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless > > > I'm misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots > > > ensures that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it > impossible > > > for one person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do > > > imminently. > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist > in > > > the first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery > (13 > > > coins/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody > > > else will be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and > production > > > flow for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little > resource > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out > the > > > window. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going > to > > > check out > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just > play? > > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should > play > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
I think I got my only land unit from that single auction. On 6/29/2018 12:42 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: We've had a single auction before. There were fewer bids, and all the land units also sold for less. Although I suppose that at this point, it might be better to have one auction because of the nearness of monopolization. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:29 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots ensures that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible for one person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do imminently. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Thanks for the explanation. On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: What's not working? 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first place) is useless 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will be able to win any more land, ever. ~Corona On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource management/placement game right now. But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything but a flat rate? On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you change the upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second email? ~Corona On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to forward it. -- Forwarded message - From: Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF To: Agora Discussion agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Name: More Advanced Land Features AI: TBD Author: Trigon Co-authors: [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines that facility type. A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are Black and White. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility is destroyed. An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always preserved. Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: 1. The Fountain - Allowed
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
There's good aspects to both methods. How about an alternating thing: switch auction types every other auction. On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Specifically in reference to G.'s third point here, you can go ahead and > propose a single auction switch and you would likely get plenty of votes. > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:43 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > 1. It was thought that being able to target land units you actually > > wanted geographically was better for strategy and would promote > > interesting auctions (you could decide to bid a lot for land units > > close to the center or less for units on the periphery). > > > > 2. It gave a big advantage to people with zombies who could place > > multiple bids (that can be fixed but it wasn't at the time). That's > > in part how Corona's monopoly started. > > > > 3. Not everyone agreed with the change. > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless > > I'm misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots > > ensures that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible > > for one person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do > > imminently. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in > > the first > > > > > > > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 > > coins/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody > > else will be > > > > > > > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > > ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production > > flow for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > > > > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the > > window. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to > > check out > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? > > What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need > > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It did
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
Specifically in reference to G.'s third point here, you can go ahead and propose a single auction switch and you would likely get plenty of votes. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:43 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 1. It was thought that being able to target land units you actually > wanted geographically was better for strategy and would promote > interesting auctions (you could decide to bid a lot for land units > close to the center or less for units on the periphery). > > 2. It gave a big advantage to people with zombies who could place > multiple bids (that can be fixed but it wasn't at the time). That's > in part how Corona's monopoly started. > > 3. Not everyone agreed with the change. > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless > I'm misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots > ensures that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible > for one person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do > imminently. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in > the first > > > > > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 > coins/1 > > > > > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody > else will be > > > > > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production > flow for > > > > > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the > window. > > > > > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to > check out > > > > > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? > What > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play > the > > > > > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the > second > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
1. It was thought that being able to target land units you actually wanted geographically was better for strategy and would promote interesting auctions (you could decide to bid a lot for land units close to the center or less for units on the periphery). 2. It gave a big advantage to people with zombies who could place multiple bids (that can be fixed but it wasn't at the time). That's in part how Corona's monopoly started. 3. Not everyone agreed with the change. On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless I'm > misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots ensures > that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible for one > person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do imminently. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the > > > > first > > > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 > > > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else > > > > will be > > > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. > > > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > > > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything > > > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change the > > > > > > > > > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just > > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
We've had a single auction before. There were fewer bids, and all the land units also sold for less. Although I suppose that at this point, it might be better to have one auction because of the nearness of monopolization. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 10:29 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless I'm > misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots ensures > that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible for one > person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do imminently. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the > first > > > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 > coins/1 > > > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else > will be > > > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production > flow for > > > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the > window. > > > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to > check out > > > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play > the > > > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need > anything > > > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change the > > > > > > > > > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the > second > > > > > > > > > > > > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just > going > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless I'm misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots ensures that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible for one person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do imminently. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > 1. land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first > > > > > > place) is useless > > > > > > 2. I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 > > > > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will > > > be > > > > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for > > > > > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. > > > > > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out > > > > > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > > > > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > > > > > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything > > > > > > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > > > > > > > > > > > > change the > > > > > > > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > > > > > > > > > > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > > > > > > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Agora Discussion agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AI: TBD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ There are no technical prob
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
As much as I would like to play with the current mechanics, doing so would likely mean everyone would get burnt out with the game because Corona would be the only one who could play. And by gosh, I'm going to prolong Arcadia's life as a mechanic as long as I can, even if it means rewriting the whole darn ruleset. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:52 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Thanks for the explanation. > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona wrote: > > > > > What's not working? > > > > > > 1) land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the > first > > > place) is useless > > > 2) I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 > > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will > be > > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow > for > > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the > window. > > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check > out > > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything > > > but a > > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > > > > change the > > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just > going > > > to > > > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > > > > > AI: TBD > > > > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by > Gray > > > > Land > > > > > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already > existing > > > > rules > > > > > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that > contain > > > > only > > > > > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm > > > > repealing > > > > > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text > with: > > > > > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, > > > > Monument, or > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
Thanks for the explanation. On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona wrote: > > > What's not working? > > > > 1) land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first > > place) is useless > > 2) I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will be > > able to win any more land, ever. > > > > ~Corona > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > > management/placement game right now. > > > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything > > but a > > > > flat rate? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > > > change the > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > > > email? > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going > > to > > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > > > > AI: TBD > > > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray > > > Land > > > > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing > > > rules > > > > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain > > > only > > > > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm > > > repealing > > > > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > > > > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, > > > Monument, or > > > > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that > > > defines > > > > > >that facility type. > > > > > > > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to > > 0. > > > This > > > > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If > > > it is > > > > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types > > > are > > > > > >Black and White. > > > > > > > > > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot > > have > > > a > > > > > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its > > > Allowed > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with. On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona wrote: > What's not working? > > 1) land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first > place) is useless > 2) I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will be > able to win any more land, ever. > > ~Corona > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > > management/placement game right now. > > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything > but a > > > flat rate? > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona > wrote: > > > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > > change the > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > > email? > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going > to > > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > > > AI: TBD > > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray > > Land > > > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing > > rules > > > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain > > only > > > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm > > repealing > > > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > > > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, > > Monument, or > > > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that > > defines > > > > >that facility type. > > > > > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to > 0. > > This > > > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If > > it is > > > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types > > are > > > > >Black and White. > > > > > > > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot > have > > a > > > > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its > > 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land > Types, > > > > >that facility is destroyed. > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
What's not working? 1) land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first place) is useless 2) I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1 ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will be able to win any more land, ever. ~Corona On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource > management/placement game right now. > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything but a > > flat rate? > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona wrote: > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you > change the > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second > email? > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley < > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to > > > > forward it. > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > > AI: TBD > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray > Land > > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing > rules > > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain > only > > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm > repealing > > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, > Monument, or > > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that > defines > > > >that facility type. > > > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. > This > > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If > it is > > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types > are > > > >Black and White. > > > > > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have > a > > > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its > 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, > > > >that facility is destroyed. > > > > > > > >An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a > > > >facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are > always > > > >preserved. > > > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". > > > > > > &
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource management/placement game right now. But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window. If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out of the land game and not bother to plan or play again. At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the basic game a few times before adding expansion sets... On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything but a > flat rate? > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona wrote: > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you change the > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second email? > > > > ~Corona > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to > > > forward it. > > > > > > -- Forwarded message ----- > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > AI: TBD > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines > > >that facility type. > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are > > >Black and White. > > > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a > > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, > > >that facility is destroyed. > > > > > >An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a > > >facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always > > >preserved. > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: > > >The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: > > > > > > 1. The Fountain > > > - Allowed Land Types: Gray > > > - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as > > > the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] > > > > > > [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some > > >other things I'm about to propose. ] &g
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
Sorry, didn't read it thoroughly, nevermind that. "A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0." - makes it sound like it's an integer. what about a nonempty set of land types ~Corona On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything but a > flat rate? > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona wrote: > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you change > the > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second email? > > > > ~Corona > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to > > > forward it. > > > > > > ------ Forwarded message - > > > From: Reuben Staley > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > > AI: TBD > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray > Land > > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules > > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only > > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing > > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, > or > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that > defines > > >that facility type. > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. > This > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it > is > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are > > >Black and White. > > > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a > > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its > 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, > > >that facility is destroyed. > > > > > >An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a > > >facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are > always > > >preserved. > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". > > > > > > Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: > > >The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: > > > > > > 1. The Fountain > > > - Allowed Land Types: Gray > > > - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as > > > the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] > > > > > > [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some > > >other things I'm about to propose. ] > > > > > > Amend Rule 2483 "Economics" by replacing its text with: > > >The following currencies, collectively called Economic Assets, > > >are defined and tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by > > >Agora
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything but a flat rate? On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona wrote: > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you change the > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second email? > > ~Corona > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to > > forward it. > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Reuben Staley > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > > To: Agora Discussion > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > > AI: TBD > > Author: Trigon > > Co-authors: > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land > >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules > >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only > >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing > >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: > >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines > >that facility type. > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are > >Black and White. > > > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a > >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, > >that facility is destroyed. > > > >An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a > >facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. > > > > Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". > > > > Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always > >preserved. > > > > Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". > > > > Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: > >The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: > > > > 1. The Fountain > > - Allowed Land Types: Gray > > - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as > > the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. > > > > [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] > > > > [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some > >other things I'm about to propose. ] > > > > Amend Rule 2483 "Economics" by replacing its text with: > >The following currencies, collectively called Economic Assets, > >are defined and tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by > >Agora, players, contracts, and facilities. > > > >1. stones (u) > >2. apples (u) > >3. carrots (u) > >4. incense (u) > >5. coal(u) > >6. ore (a) > >7. lumber (a) > >8. cotton (a) > >9. coins (r) > >10. papers (r) > >11. fabric (r) > > > >Those marked with a (u) are Unrefinable Economic Assets. > >Those marked with a (a) are Refinable Economic Assets. > >Those marked with a (r) are Refined Economic Assets. > > > >Coins are the official currency of Agora. > > > > [ PART II: REVAMPING MOVEMENT ] > > >
Re: DIS: Proto: MALF
It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you change the upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second email? ~Corona On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to > forward it. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Reuben Staley > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF > To: Agora Discussion > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features > AI: TBD > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land >and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules >to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only >one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing >all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: >Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines >that facility type. > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are >Black and White. > >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a >Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, >that facility is destroyed. > >An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a >facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. > > Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". > > Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: >Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always >preserved. > > Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". > > Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: >The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: > > 1. The Fountain > - Allowed Land Types: Gray > - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as > the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. > > [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] > > [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some >other things I'm about to propose. ] > > Amend Rule 2483 "Economics" by replacing its text with: >The following currencies, collectively called Economic Assets, >are defined and tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by >Agora, players, contracts, and facilities. > >1. stones (u) >2. apples (u) >3. carrots (u) >4. incense (u) >5. coal(u) >6. ore (a) >7. lumber (a) >8. cotton (a) >9. coins (r) >10. papers (r) >11. fabric (r) > >Those marked with a (u) are Unrefinable Economic Assets. >Those marked with a (a) are Refinable Economic Assets. >Those marked with a (r) are Refined Economic Assets. > >Coins are the official currency of Agora. > > [ PART II: REVAMPING MOVEMENT ] > > [ This section brings back a system formerly called Action Units. I >didn't include this mechanic in the original PAoaM proposal since it >looked very similar to Action Points, a very unpopular system at the >time. But I think it allows for better movement options, so I'm >reinstituting it. This also touches on some of Corona's ideas for >prioritizing small groups of land units. ] > > Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with: >Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player >switch. Players can destroy one apple to increase eir Energy >
Fwd: DIS: Proto: MALF
I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going to forward it. -- Forwarded message - From: Reuben Staley Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50 Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF To: Agora Discussion Name: More Advanced Land Features AI: TBD Author: Trigon Co-authors: [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines that facility type. A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are Black and White. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility is destroyed. An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always preserved. Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: 1. The Fountain - Allowed Land Types: Gray - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some other things I'm about to propose. ] Amend Rule 2483 "Economics" by replacing its text with: The following currencies, collectively called Economic Assets, are defined and tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, contracts, and facilities. 1. stones (u) 2. apples (u) 3. carrots (u) 4. incense (u) 5. coal(u) 6. ore (a) 7. lumber (a) 8. cotton (a) 9. coins (r) 10. papers (r) 11. fabric (r) Those marked with a (u) are Unrefinable Economic Assets. Those marked with a (a) are Refinable Economic Assets. Those marked with a (r) are Refined Economic Assets. Coins are the official currency of Agora. [ PART II: REVAMPING MOVEMENT ] [ This section brings back a system formerly called Action Units. I didn't include this mechanic in the original PAoaM proposal since it looked very similar to Action Points, a very unpopular system at the time. But I think it allows for better movement options, so I'm reinstituting it. This also touches on some of Corona's ideas for prioritizing small groups of land units. ] Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with: Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player switch. Players can destroy one apple to increase eir Energy Points by one. Players can destroy one carrt to increase eir Energy Points by three. At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch is flipped to 0. Any player can decrease eir Energy Points by: 1. 1 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; 2. 2 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether; 3. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to an alternating Land Type. 4. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns and is located on to eir choice of either Black o
DIS: Proto: MALF
New ideas for land: Name: More Advanced Land Features AI: TBD Author: Trigon Co-authors: [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ] [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ] [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by Gray Land and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing rules to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain only one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm repealing all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ] Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors". Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with: Each facility can be either a Production, Processing, Monument, or Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that defines that facility type. A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to 0. This is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If it is not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land Types are Black and White. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a facility cannot have a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of its 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 Land Type that is not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility is destroyed. An "x facility", where x is a valid Land Type, refers to a facility that has x in its Allowed Land Types. Repeal Rule 2569 "Gray Land". Amend Rule 2565 "Land Types" by appending: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Gray Land Units are always preserved. Repeal Rule 2571 "The Fountain" and Rule 2572 "Wishing Fountain". Amend Rule 2570 "Monument Facilities" by appending: The following facilities are considered Monument Facilities: 1. The Fountain - Allowed Land Types: Gray - Special Effects: If a player's location is the same as the fountain, e CAN transfer a coin to the fountain 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. [ PART I, SECTION II: CURRENCY FIXES ] [ This should've been done a long time ago. Also this supports some other things I'm about to propose. ] Amend Rule 2483 "Economics" by replacing its text with: The following currencies, collectively called Economic Assets, are defined and tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, contracts, and facilities. 1. stones (u) 2. apples (u) 3. carrots (u) 4. incense (u) 5. coal(u) 6. ore (a) 7. lumber (a) 8. cotton (a) 9. coins (r) 10. papers (r) 11. fabric (r) Those marked with a (u) are Unrefinable Economic Assets. Those marked with a (a) are Refinable Economic Assets. Those marked with a (r) are Refined Economic Assets. Coins are the official currency of Agora. [ PART II: REVAMPING MOVEMENT ] [ This section brings back a system formerly called Action Units. I didn't include this mechanic in the original PAoaM proposal since it looked very similar to Action Points, a very unpopular system at the time. But I think it allows for better movement options, so I'm reinstituting it. This also touches on some of Corona's ideas for prioritizing small groups of land units. ] Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with: Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player switch. Players can destroy one apple to increase eir Energy Points by one. Players can destroy one carrt to increase eir Energy Points by three. At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch is flipped to 0. Any player can decrease eir Energy Points by: 1. 1 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; 2. 2 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether; 3. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to an alternating Land Type. 4. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns and is located on to eir choice of either Black or White. 5. 3 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. 6. 5 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is of type Aether and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. [ PART III: SPECIALIZED FACILITIES ] [ This
