That's a very interesting idea. It might make the game a bit too focused on
traveling everywhere rather than doing stuff, though.
On 11/14/2017 6:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
What if you could only perform certain game actions in certain places
and you could only move certain distances. So, we would have a forum for
voting and proposing. A courthouse for CFJs and judging. An office
building for publishing reports. A bank for treasury. An auction house
for auction stuff.
On 11/14/2017 02:26 AM, Reuben Staley 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.
