Ed Murphy wrote: >I think it's clear enough, but okay, "eir VCs of each color are >set to zero".
That's still a bad wording. The intent is not to modify the VCs themselves, it's to arrange for em to not have any VCs. No doubt someone will argue that "setting a VC to zero" is a null action, so that your sentence has no effect on a player's VC holdings. >On the other hand, this requires keeping records of increasingly >fiddly fractions. That's definitely to be avoided. The way I originally imagined this was that during the week you'd queue up a series of multipliers, which are all applied at the end of the week, and rounding occurs after all multiplications for that week have been done. Not sure if that's actually better than rounding after each multiplication. > Perhaps the number could be rounded in a >weighted-random direction (e.g. 12.6 has a 60% chance of being >rounded to 13, 40% of being rounded to 12). Fiddly, and problematic if we ever have to recalculate state (due to mistake about VC holdings). History shows that determinate changes are a lot less trouble. In fact, we only have one indeterminacy left in the ruleset, so it's tempting to excise it and make the game fully determinate. Please don't extend the use of randomness. -zefram
