On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 20:18 +0100, C-walker wrote: >>> 7. Initialization is based on list of Champions (previously >>> published); non-champions are put on list in registration >>> order. >> >> This is generally a good idea, but maybe non-Champions could be placed >> higher in the initial list for other patent titles, number of cards >> and other things that represent a contribution to Agora such as >> offices?
I do agree that, in the initial list, it's unfair to put someone who registered and then did nothing in front of someone who's been active, but just hasn't won yet. I'll think about improving the formula. But in general, I think many of these are earned as cards which can be taken as chances to advance. On other patent titles: what's the point of calling one breed of patent title "winning" if it doesn't confer an advantage over other patent titles? > I disagree with anything which gives a big voting penalty to new > players. Is it really that much worse than starting as epsilon and no money? The answer is: it depends on the card balance. Maybe new players should start with a defined set of cards rather than a set of random draws: 2xDistrib-u-matics, a "jump P places on the list", and 2xAbsolv-o-matics (in case they make mistakes). Also: remember that voting limit is the sum of base (caste or new list ranking) and the roll call card plays. Maybe there should be an intermediate type of card: increase voting limit on everything distributed within a single week (must be played in previous week). -G.
