I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much. In a “traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In Agora, however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the opposite of what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much to make wins rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if anyone else feels like this.
Gaelan > On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too > many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to > stop, a sort of win inflation?) > > Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to > the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win > inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game design > to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition > mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and what > they have meant to us until now. > > (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit better > before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I want > to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet > similar/parallel enough to nomic itself) > >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it >> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because >> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed. >> >> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It >> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol. >> >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic >>> wins >>> have resulted in complete economy resets. >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >>>> >>>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each >>>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once >>>> someone's done it first the method's gone. >>>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they >>>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win. >>>> >>>>> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote: >>>>> Append to 2449 “winning the game”: >>>>> >>>>> When one or more players win the game: >>>>> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are >>> cancelled. >>>>> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win >>>> are destroyed. >>>>> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two >>>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not >>> win, >>>> excluding the White ribbon. >>>>> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real >>>> recordkeeping] >>>>> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition] >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> >>>>> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an >>>> incentive to stop it >>>>> >>>>> Gaelan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
