On the use of switches: Is it appropriate to have something be a switch if
there isn't really any case in which its value would change other than a
rule change? I originally had a facility's Categories and Allowed Land
Types as Switches but I couldn't find any examples of them being used like
that. (Where under normal circumstances, nobody can flip them to a
different value except through proposal). The other changes are very
helpful, thanks! And re the MMI, I'll try and fix what I notice. If there's
things I don't fix in the next draft, let me know specifically where they
are, I feel like I might be missing some.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> On 3/2/2018 2:37 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
>
>> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
>>
>> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
>> Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
>> text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
>>
>> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
>> A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates
>> it.
>>
>
> I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Categories are entities?
> Why?
>
> A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it,
>> and
>> may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories
>> are
>> defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories
>> is
>> the null set.
>>
>> A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in
>> its
>> Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong to
>> [Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that
>> belong
>> to [Category] and no others.
>>
>
> I'd recommend replacing "[Category]" with a single-letter variable like x
> or n or maybe even c. Not that this is wrong, it's just more Agoran to have
> it the other way.
>
> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>>
>
> Rename this rule to something like "Types of Facilities" or smth.
>
>
> Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
>> facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
>> possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
>> specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount
>> of
>> an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator facility exceeds
>> that
>> asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed until
>> the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility is equal
>> to
>> its carrying capacity.
>>
>> Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>> Production
>> facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>> Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a Production
>> facility
>> specified by the rule which creates the facility.
>>
>> Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>> Processing
>> facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>> Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in the possession of
>> each processing facility that that facility can change into refined
>> assets and replaces them with a corresponding number of refined
>> assets
>> to be specified by the rule that creates the facility.
>>
>> A player can take a number of assets from an Asset Generator
>> facility's
>> inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as the
>> facility's
>> and the following criteria are met:
>>
>> 1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none.
>>
>> 2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
>> that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do
>> so.
>>
>> 3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the
>> facility, or the owner must have consented.
>>
>
> This is a problem with the original PAoaM, not your proposal, but it sure
> looks like players can't transfer assets to facilities. Gaelan, better add
> that to the PAoaM patch proposal.
>
> Amend "Facility Ranks" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>> Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting to
>> 1.
>> Its possible values include all integers between 1 and 5, inclusive.
>>
>> If a facility specifies upgrade costs, a player CAN increase the rank
>> of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by
>> announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that
>> specific rank. If no upgrade costs are specified for a facility, a
>> player CANNOT increase the rank of that facility unless specified in
>> other rules.
>>
>> Create a new rule "Facility Colors" (Power=2.0):
>> A facility's Allowed Land Types is a property defined as such, having
>>
>
> Make Allowed Land Types a switch with the possible values of a list of
> allowed Land Types. Also, I think to keep consistent with the title, you
> should have it be maybe named the color switch.
>
> allowable values of any set of allowed values of the Land Type switch,
>> with a default value of {"Black", "White"}. A facility may not have a
>> Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of their Allowed
>> Land Types. If an action or set of actions would cause a facility to
>> be
>> created with a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of
>> its Allowed Land Types, that action or set of actions fails. If a
>> facility's Parent Land Unit's Land Type is flipped to a color that is
>> not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility, and
>> anything
>> contained within, is destroyed.
>>
>
> "and anything contained within" is gratuitous. Not saying you have to
> remove it, but it's sort of implied, for future notice.
>
> Also, I still think another paragraph should be added that lists the X
> facility shorthand. Then you can define something as a "gray facility" to
> make it a bit shorter.
>
> Create a new rule "Gray Land" (Power=2.0):
>> Gray Land is Land whose Land Type switch is set to "Gray". Gray Land
>>
>
> This first sentence is gratuitous as well. In the original land types
> rule, X Land is specified as Land with a type of X.
>
> is preserved and owned by Agora. If Land becomes Gray Land, it, along
>> with any facilities with it as their Parent Land Unit, are transfered
>> to Agora, and the Land's preservation switch is set to true.
>>
>
> You mention being preserved twice here. Don't be redundant and repeat
> yourself.
>
> Create a new rule "Gray Actions" (Power=1.0):
>> Players CAN destroy:
>>
>> 1. 1 apple to move from one Gray Land Unit to an adjacent Unit of any
>> Land Type that is not Aether;
>>
>> 2. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit of any Land Type to an adjacent
>> Gray Land Unit.
>>
>> Players CAN, while performing the above actions, substitute 3
>> apples for 1 corn. [Maybe need a good way to say that these actions
>> can
>> be combined with actions described in Actions in Arcadia for the
>> purposes of spending corn.]
>>
>
> Here's how I'd implement this rule. Make the first item in the list in
> that rule say this:
>
> 1. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their
> Land Types are the same or one of them is gray, and the
> destination is not Aether;
>
>
> Create a new rule "Agoran Monuments" (Power=1.0):
>> Agoran Monument is a Category of facilities. For each type of Agoran
>> Monument facility, there may only be one instance of that facility in
>> existence at any one time. If an action would cause an Agoran
>> Monument
>> facility to exist while another Agoran Monument facility of the same
>> type is already in existence, that action fails.
>>
>> Create a new rule "The Fountain" (Power=1.0):
>> A fountain is a facility with Allowed Land Types of {"Gray"}, and
>> Categories {Agoran Monument}. A fountain has no upkeep cost.
>>
>> Create a new rule "Wishing Fountain", (Power=1.0):
>> If a player's location is the same as a fountain, e CAN and MAY
>> destroy
>> a coin to Throw A Coin into the fountain. This does nothing, unless
>> specified in another Rule. A player MAY announce what e wishes for
>> when
>> e Throws A Coin.
>>
>> Set (0, 0)'s Land Type to "Gray".
>> Create a fountain at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
>> }
>>
>> Reasons for rules:
>> - "Land Types" needs to be amended to add Gray as a Land Type.
>> - "Facility Categories" is an implementation of Aris' suggestion of
>> defining facility categories.
>> - "Asset Generation with Facilities" is amended to turn production and
>> processing into Categories. The actual rules for specific
>> facilities can be unmodified, I think.
>> - "Facility Ranks" is modified so it's clear what happens if a facility
>> doesn't define ranks, like the fountain right now.
>> - "Facility Colors" is Trigon's suggestion of "X facilities"
>> - "Gray Land" defines how Gray Land works, including Trigon's suggestion
>> of specifying that Gray Land is always preserved.
>> - "Gray Actions" allows walking on Gray Land.
>> - "Agoran Monuments" specifies a Category used for unique structures
>> that
>> can only exist one place in Arcadia.
>> - "The Fountain" is self explanatory, creates a unique gray fountain.
>> - "Wishing Fountain" is just so fountains have a use, even a useless
>> one.
>>
>> Corrections, fixes, ideas, etc would all be highly appreciated.
>>
>> Kenyon
>>
>
> Very nice! I really like the idea of this adnd this is really quite good
> for a first proposal. The MMI *really* needs some work, but otherwise, nice
> job.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think non-Proc/Prod facilities would be great. Walls or streets for
>>> example would be cool.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd go with solution 2, but modified. What if we made it so that each
>>>> facility could fit into (0 or more) "categories", and defined Production
>>>> and Processing as categories. That way, we could extend it later without
>>>> dealing with an exponential increase in the number of types. It also
>>>>
>>> leave
>>>
>>>> flexibility if we want to do 3 later.
>>>>
>>>> -Aris
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I ran into a problem that I figured I'd share and ask for input.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Asset Generation with Facilities" specifies that "Each facility is
>>>>>
>>>> either
>>>>
>>>>> a production facility or processing facility". The draft up there
>>>>>
>>>> specifies
>>>>
>>>>> that a fountain is a facility, but that it neither produces nor
>>>>>
>>>> processes
>>>
>>>> anything. There are a couple solutions that I see:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) A fountain is a production facility that produces nothing, or a
>>>>> processing facility that processes nothing. Easy, kinda a hack, but
>>>>>
>>>> it'll
>>>
>>>> work.
>>>>> 2) Modify "Asset Generation with Facilities" so facilities can have a
>>>>>
>>>> type
>>>>
>>>>> of any element in {None, Production, Processing, Production &
>>>>>
>>>> Processing},
>>>>
>>>>> and fountains are type None.
>>>>> 3) Define "buildings" as a superset/superclass of facilities, move the
>>>>> shared rules to new rules about Buildings, and have fountain and
>>>>>
>>>> facility
>>>
>>>> be types of buildings with their own specific sub-rules. Easily the
>>>>>
>>>> most
>>>
>>>> flexible, but requires a fairly significant refactor, so it only really
>>>>> seems worth it if this is going to be a recurring problem. If the
>>>>>
>>>> fountain
>>>>
>>>>> is the only non-facility-facility we add, we might as well go with 1 or
>>>>>
>>>> 2.
>>>>
>>>>> If we're adding a ton of non-production buildings (arenas, houses,
>>>>>
>>>> roads,
>>>
>>>> whatever) then this might be worth it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if there's a smarter solution here, but I just wanted to get
>>>>> feedback to see if people were OK with 1 or if they thought 2 and 3
>>>>>
>>>> were
>>>
>>>> better, or if there's another option I didn't consider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kenyon
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuben Staley <
>>>>>
>>>> reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like this. I'll have more detailed comments when it's typed up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> in a
>>>
>>>> proposal, but I think that this fits with the spirit of what we're
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> going
>>>>>
>>>>>> for. Certainly it is a good idea to have a neutral spawn point,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> even
>>>
>>>> if
>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> colors don't mean that much yet. I suggest just calling the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> facility
>>>
>>>> type
>>>>>
>>>>>> "fountain", and letting people refer to it as "the fountain",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> because
>>>
>>>> there's only one. You could even make it an explicit singleton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something
>>>>>
>>>>>> to the effect of "There is a unique facility, know as 'the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> fountain',
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> (0, 0). It... <properties>." I'd also suggest not referencing
>>>>>>> Rule 2029 by number (and definitely don't include the revision
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> id).
>>>
>>>> Instead, either just say "the town fountain", or let people figure
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it
>>>
>>>> out
>>>>>
>>>>>> for themselves (my personal favored option).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with everything Aris said here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Aris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:05 PM Kenyon Prater <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> kprater3...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A very rough draft for a proposal. I'm going to hold off on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> writing
>>>
>>>> it
>>>>
>>>>> up
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> until the current mess is resolved, but I wanted to get feedback
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>> whether
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the idea is interesting to people
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The proposal would: {
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Create a Land Type of "Gray". Land that has Land Type "Gray" is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gray
>>>
>>>> land.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gray land cannot support any facilities except those specifically
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> stated to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be allowed on gray land. If land becomes gray land, any facilities
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>>>> are destroyed, except for those specifically stated to be allowed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on
>>>
>>>> gray
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> land.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe to avoid redundancy, you could term these facilities "gray
>>>>>> facilities". Or even make a rule that says "X facilities" where X is
>>>>>>
>>>>> a
>>>
>>>> land type in case we decide to restrict the land types some
>>>>>>
>>>>> facilities
>>>
>>>> can be on in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gray land cannot be owned by any entity other than Agora. If land
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gray land, it is transfered to Agora.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *transferred. Maybe also say that Gray land is always preserved. That
>>>>>> way, no one can modify any of the facilities on the gray land.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gray land is treated as "the same" as both white and black for the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> purposes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of movement, ie it only costs one apple to move from any
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> non-aether
>>>
>>>> land to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gray, and only one apple to move from gray to any non-aether land.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Set (0, 0) to Gray land.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Create a new facility type "the fountain". Only one the fountain
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> may
>>>
>>>> exist
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at any one time. The fountain may exist on gray land, and may only
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> exist on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gray land. Players MAY and SHOULD think of this fountain as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> referring
>>>>
>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>>> the one depicted in Rule 2029/0 "Town Fountain". The fountain may
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> only
>>>>
>>>>> be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> owned by Agora. The fountain has no upkeep cost, and neither
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> refines
>>>
>>>> nor
>>>>>
>>>>>> produces anything, except as specified in other proposals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just "Fountain" please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Create a "the fountain" at (0, 0) belonging to Agora.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My goal with the draft was to to;
>>>>>>>> 1) make the number of preserved squares each color had equal.
>>>>>>>> 2) To ensure that the spawn at (0,0) was neutral to both colors
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (right
>>>>
>>>>> now,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a player residing on one of the colors has to spend an extra apple
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> move
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> back home as compared to somebody residing equally far on the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> other
>>>
>>>> color).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) To provide a meeting ground for players for future rules to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> use.
>>>
>>>> One
>>>>>
>>>>>> could imagine a rule specifying that all players at (0,0) on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agora's
>>>
>>>> Birthday CAN [do something]. Or this could be integrated into the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> justice
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reform; to rid themselves of weevils/blots/whatever, players must
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> make a
>>>>>
>>>>>> pilgrimage to the fountain to give [currency].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very nice. Perhaps Cuddlebeam's idea for arenas could have a physical
>>>>>> manifestation on a piece of gray land. This also makes it really nice
>>>>>> for future Agora-sponsored activities that take place on a map.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Trigon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>>
> --
> Trigon
>
