Probably because I wrote that on my phone, and my phone's mail app sucks really bad.
-- Trigon On Nov 14, 2017 7:56 AM, "ATMunn" <[email protected]> wrote: > Your comments are a bit hard to distinguish from the original message. > > On 11/14/2017 2:26 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. >> >>
