As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be all one thing. There can be a couple resetting win methods, and some that don't reset. It's fun when we don't worry about it, but say 1-2 weeks in a quarter events conspire to have a "race to a prize" that several people compete in. (Things like Zombie Auctions also lend themselves to those sorts of competitive occasions).
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > This particular tempo for the game and its wins is what makes Agora very > appealing to me. We already have Blognomic for constant competitive play, > and we could just propose here "Competition Month" or something. I wouldn't > feel like changing something this "fundamental" to that tempo would be good > - but I would very much enjoy a temporary "ay, lets all friggin compete > mofos, it's TIME!" thing. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
