On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 19:53 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: > * We have too many subsystems. It's hard to admit because nearly all of > them are neat and well designed, but it's just too much in one game at > once. Do we need three different binding agreements (agencies, pledges, > organizations)? Probably not. We should either combine them or remove > the least popular two. What about all of our winning conditions?
On the contrary, I think the relative lack of activity in Agora is that there isn't actually anything to /do/. Much of what you list (like the winning conditions) is harmless. On that subject, I don't think we have nearly enough win conditions (most of the ones we do have are either scam release valves, or very long term goals). It used to be that you could win Agora every couple of months by outplaying people on the economy and on regular gameplay. That's no longer the case, and I don't think there have been any non-scam wins for a very long time (maybe a historically long time?). The thing about Agoran complexity is that there are two sorts: the rules you have to know about, and the rules that are only relevant when you interact with them. (Perhaps these should actually be in separate rulesets, at least presentationally? Most real-life rulesets work like that, after all.) If you don't know what a Trust Token is, it's unlikely ever to bother you. If you do, you can keep track of them and try to make progress in that direction (although with the mechanic unpopular, it's unlikely it'll ever result in a win). Likewise, the fix for SHALLs is probably to make them only apply to officers, and have a neat list of all the relevant SHALLs in the rule defining the office. They serve an important role in preventing the game breaking, but they're the kind of thing that can easily trip up a new player if they apply to everyone. -- ais523
