On 11/19/2017 12:43 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Reuben Staley <[email protected]> wrote:
So I should just have the first two paragraphs plus the little "changes are
secured" thing?
Yep. In fact, you really shouldn't need even the changes are secured.
They're restricted, and that's probably good enough.\
Okay, I'll get rid of that.
After thinking it through, though, I think I'll call jafitah "patches" and
zmetah "facilities"
You're using them inconsistently
anyway.
No I'm actually not. Whenever I typed jafit, I meant jafit. Whenever I typed
zmet, I meant zmet.
What I meant was that you still had "plot" in the proposal anyway, and
were interchanging those.
Oh, I did? Well, it looks like it's fixed now.
Jafitah (pronounced /jæfitɑ/, singular "jafit") are liquid assets
tracked by the Cartographor.
In order to create a plot, the player who wishes to create it
SHALL specify one or more Land Units that are all connected by a
single Type that the plot is to be composed of. These land units
are considered the jafit's constituents.
A player CAN create or destroy a plot by announcement by spending
3 AP or 5 sh.
If one or more units of land that make up a jafit ever have their
ownership or Land Type changed, then:
1. If the change would cause the constituent Land Units to cease
to be connected, then the jafit is destroyed;
2. otherwise, the plot is resized to exclude the Land Unit in
question.
I really don't like the semi-modular approach. Make it so that each
one piece of land is separate, it will be simpler to deal with. I like
complexity, but this is needless.
You really think so? The reason I did it this way is because I wanted people
to want to make larger jafitah so that the size could determine how much of
a profit they could turn.
The alternative, which makes more sense to me, is that you have to
build a farm on each piece of land individually. That way, instead of
doing all the record keeping on patches, we do recordkeping on each
piece of land as a single unit. It also means that you can transfer
one piece of land, with its farm, or whatever.
No, I understand that you want there to one structure per land unit.
That makes sense, and it does seem to be less recordkeeping. My argument
was that I wanted people to be encouraged to own large sectors of
contiguous land.
My suggestion would be to say that
you can only build on land you're standing on, encouraging building
things closer together so you can access them. We might eventually
allow players to "level up" their building after some time (like I
think G.'s proposal had),
Please no, that seems more complex.
Why? A rank-1 farm produces 1x fruits, a rank-2 farm produces 2x
fruits, and so forth.
Oh, that makes more sense. I thought you meant that a player could level
up eir building skill and any buildings you made with different skill
levels would have different stats. What you actually meant makes sense.
My question is, how would one level up eir facilities? Would e have to
spend more assets? Or would it automatically level up with time? Or
something else entirely. If you're able to convince me of this concept
then I'll definitely do it.
or provide synergy bonuses, or both, but
those are all simpler than tracking this. Also, wouldn't you want to
require the player to own all the land?
Crap, did I not specify that the player had to own all the land? Because I
intended to.
[ This needs to be worded better. Suggest fixes please. Thanks in
advance. ]
Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmetah" with the text:
[ Okay, I'm just gonna call everything by Sajem Tan names because why
not. This one means "building" btw. ]
Zmetah (pronounced /zmetɑ/, singular "zmet") are liquid assets
tracked by the Cartographor. In order for a zmet to exist, it MUST
be built on a jafit. Only one zmet is allowed per jafit.
A player CAN create a zmet by announcement by paying specifying
which jafit e wants to build it on, specifying which type of zmet
e intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost.
If a player owns a zmet, e CAN, by announcement, use any powers
the zmet affords to em.
If a player owns any zmetah with upkeep costs, e SHALL pay them
before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do this
destroys the zmet. In the second to last week of the Agoran Month,
the Cartographor SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to all
those who have not paid upkeep fees on any of eir zmetah.
You probably just want to destroy it, not punish the person.
Uh, they are destroyed if you don't pay the upkeep cost. And there's no
punishment, unless you call the humiliating public reminders, which do not
punish the player at all, a punishment.
" e SHALL pay" specifies that e can be punished if e doesn't. I'd just
drop it, but the problem persists in your latest draft.
Oh, duh. Making it lowercase should fix it, right?
I think
others have mentioned this, but SHALL/CAN problems pop up throughout
the proposal.
Many times before (insert old Agoran language complaint here). They should
all be fixed before the next version.
Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmet Types" with the text:
The following Zmet types are defined, along with all relevant
statistics:
1. Estate
- Build Cost: 10sh.
- Upkeep Cost: 10sh.
- Powers: The owner of an estate CAN choose to raise eir
voting power by one on up to X proposals, where X is the Nth
triangular number, where N is the amount of Land Units the
jafit which the estate is built on has.
[ I hope that's clear so that someone can fix it lol. But seriously this
sucks. ]
2. Quarry
- Build Cost: 5sh.
- Upkeep Cost: 5sh.
- Powers:
[ Depending on what economic reform proposal passes, Quarries will
either create shinies in the owner's possession, or it will do
something else related to shinies.
Also, I need more ideas for this section. Overall though, I think
that this conveys the ideas I had in mind. Critique away! ]
I like the Sente/Gote and Q*Bert systems from the thing you posted. Is
there any reason we can't have several kinds of gameplay on the same
map at the same time?
I like them too. I just thought it added a bit of needless complexity for a
very new system. If someone wants to re-add them after people have adjusted
themselves to the map's workings, I would love to include them. But for now,
I'm not sure if it's an entirely good idea.
Fair. One of us can propose them after the system is a bit more settled then.
Yeah, I'd really like them to show up eventually.
-Aris
Okay, so your ideas are definitely gonna help make PAoAM v3 better.
Thanks for the suggestions.
--
Trigon
