This all is why it's a proto proposal. There are so many issues that you don't realize as the author, so you never even think of the criticisms others realize so quickly. Comments below.
-- Trigon On Nov 14, 2017 12:05 AM, "Kerim Aydin" <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Title: "Putting Agora on a Map" > A broad rather than detail comment: It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes). You say that "powers" are what you need ideas on, but that's the meat of it - without knowing what powers you want to go for, it's hard to see *why* it's useful to have a map and move around on it. I'm concerned that building mechanism before purpose ends up being like Agronomy - a lot of mechanism that doesn't get used. Both Agronomy and the overarching Estates both failed because they didn't have enough ties to the core gameplay. I think having a variety of types of structures that tie into the core gameplay in many ways would be the thing that makes this mechanic relevant. Therefore, more powers would incite more interest in creating structures. That's not to say the idea of moving around on 2D space and marking territory is a bad mechanism, it just seems like setting a specific goal would really help this (e.g. win condition coming from a certain type of 2D competitive interaction, or a specified set of economic growth or promotion of private trade). Otherwise it's hard to know if the gameplay creates good/interesting situations. Idea: Wins by ownership, which are awarded when a player reaches a specific threshold of amount of land units owned. Wins by property size, where if you have a jafit that is super big you win. Wins by variety, where if you have a lot of different types of structures you win. There are lots of wins that could be implemented. As a detail note, we should really unify on AP *or* shinies. Having both around is a bit of a kludge and it would be good to pick just one for basic action apportionment. Good point. The two overlapping systems are quite inelegant.
