I have a hard time believing that everyone would consistently over-shoot
with their expectations of winning - why not under-shoot? Both you and
Gaelan have brought up that people will be like that. I think it's naive to
assume that everyone is going to be that optimistic, inaccurate in
assessing
On 8/24/2020 9:37 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> It's not as much of an issue that the payout is low, it's that if it's
> pulled off, you can't really win by any way other than this maneuver
> itself. (Aside from some obscure scam, but even then, it's going to be very
> hard to
It's not as much of an issue that the payout is low, it's that if it's
pulled off, you can't really win by any way other than this maneuver
itself. (Aside from some obscure scam, but even then, it's going to be very
hard to pull off unless the initial rules already are flawed and scammable)
We
I see that argument brought up a lot.
So, sure. Let's assume that you decide not to participate in the cabal and
decide to wait and go do a different move because you're motivated to go
win in a different way. The cabal, having more people, would be a lot more
likely to have one person go ahead
I think the interesting gameplay arises in passing rules in different cabals,
such that you win without either having known.
> On Aug 24, 2020, at 10:05, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 24, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>
>>
> On Aug 24, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> First turn, after (necessarily) talking to a cabal of players to get it
> passed: "Randomly choose a player among me and [the cabal]. That player
> wins and the game ends."
Admittedly, you have more experience
Plain nomic played pragmatically to win is a horrible game imo. I suspect
this will devolve into people making blocs or something like usual, and the
secrecy element doesn't seem to do anything to change that. It seems
to *actually
encourage* making cabals, and the game can easily immediately end
On 8/19/20 10:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I wrote this ruleset up a while ago, and there's been some interest when I
> brought it up on the discord, so I figured I'd bring it up again. I'll set it
> up as a free tournament soon, but wanted to get some feedback first. That
Updated version that consolidates all of my reporting duties into one daily
message.
Gaelan
---
Initial Set of Rules
Immutable Rules
101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form
in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect
I wrote this ruleset up a while ago, and there's been some interest when I
brought it up on the discord, so I figured I'd bring it up again. I'll set it
up as a free tournament soon, but wanted to get some feedback first. That being
said, my preference would be to do relatively minimal
On 11/4/19 1:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
It also might be interesting to make a solid, unchangeable, "only one
person
can win" rule. Though that could end up like Diplomacy where a majority
alliances "wins" but then it becomes a draw if you try to play it to a
single winner.
Oooh - I haven't
On 11/4/2019 8:56 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I like this a lot but just a comment on how it may turn out.
If we're playing nomic purely to win, running totally nude without our
civilized clothing of morality and goodwill, it might be best to go full
ham on "Benefit a Majority, Punish a Minority",
I like this a lot but just a comment on how it may turn out.
If we're playing nomic purely to win, running totally nude without our
civilized clothing of morality and goodwill, it might be best to go full
ham on "Benefit a Majority, Punish a Minority", or "bampam", which pops up
quite a bit on
[TL;DR: Nomic, but the ruleset isn’t published and proposals are private. The
intention is that you’d make your proposal, and share the next with just enough
people to get a majority voting for it.]
Initial Set of Rules
Immutable Rules
101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in
14 matches
Mail list logo
