If we're picking one, I prefer shinies. I think they allow for more interesting build up and planning.
-Aris On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:26 PM Reuben Staley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
