On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote: > > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want > and don't know how to deal with [...] > I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the > Shiny system if they don't want to. > > > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp > when I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps? > Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so > someone angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources > they can't control. Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing else. You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2 Stamps at the minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell the excess stamps to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming prices fluxtuate up and down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly) you're making unique stamps for free. > If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player > sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable) > farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that > player's stamps. The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone is 'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can go down as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of trying to make inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available. > > Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which > increases the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not > been created recently, giving stamps a hold value as well. > That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important. > 天火狐 > > On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com > <mailto:thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T > <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com <mailto:draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization > needs to pay > > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets > proposal states > > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to > accept an > > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather > a player > > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and > have a > > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be > in (which is > > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all > > Organizations to have a Shiny balance. > I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I > just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't > want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion. > > -Aris > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
