On 5/2/09 5:23 PM, comex wrote: > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Charles Reiss <woggl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also, I rather dislike >> the bias here towards currencies denominated in large units. How about a >> little less such bias, like: >> > I thought about having it depending on zm but this system is already > relatively annoying, as you have to remember what you're already > deposited this week or risk messing up your transactions. As the main > purpose of the diminishing returns is to prevent scams, legitimate > uses should rarely go below 0.80; so it makes little difference, and > basing it on zm makes deposits even more of a pain to calculate > because you have to keep a running total of your deposits so far. If > it makes a big difference to you, I might change it. > I didn't think my proposal was much more burdensome, since I expected players to be tracking how much zm they think they got from their deposits anyways so as not to use zm they don't have. (Or, if they aren't, to not really care exactly how much they have until they see the President's report.)
A perhaps simpler approach might be to count deposits of some cheap assets (say Rate < 40, covering the common crops initially) as some fraction (e.g. a quarter) of a deposit. But this probably doesn't remove burden substantially. Also, shouldn't there be a rate for X crops initially? - woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
