On July 13, 2018 10:00 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of > > money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't fix > > the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to > > achieve maximum equality.
Yes, I'm not entirely satisfied with it either. But a full reset feels unfair to the people who have already been putting effort into the economy. If we can adjust it so that it's at least somewhat more accessible for new players, I'm not convinced that it's entirely necessary to erase all progress so far. I have a vague idea for a land equalisation proposal similar to this one, but I'm not quite ready to submit a proposal just yet. > I don't recall who, but someone said that each different auction system had > > its own benefits, which I agree with. I really think alternating between 5 > > auctions and one is the best way to run these auctions. So let it be known > > that I while would support this, I think there's a better way to do it. I'm about to submit a different proposal that keeps some of the advantages of the 5-auctions system; let me know what you think? > Too cheap, and also I don't really like having all of this information > > under the assets rule. I suggest moving all the library special details to > > another rule. I did um and ah about the cost - in my original draft, it cost 5 lumber and 5 paper (with similarly higher upgrade costs). But I realised that most people only have a small number of facilities, so it would take a really long time for the library to pay for itself. I agree it _seems_ cheap but I think it needs to be in order to be useful. I'm not averse, though, to raising the cost if several people think it wise - although it must be said that it's not a priority since this proposal will probably not be got to for at least a couple of weeks. I respectfully disagree about the position of the special details; I see the existing upkeep costs rule as the "core" system, and this as an alternative that overrides it for library-owners, and so I feel that keeping it with the mechanism that _causes_ the override (the definition of libraries) makes more sense. (But again, if everyone disagrees I wouldn't object strongly to moving it; it's not like the position of the rule in the ruleset makes any difference to its interpretation. I think.) > Yeah but how do you get sand? And glass should be given a purpose, even if > > it is just as a building material. Ah, I completely forgot to add a new production facility for sand. My bad. Though, to be perfectly honest, this was not really polished enough for submission; I mainly included it as lorem ipsum in the hope that people would not bother reading all the text and not notice the declarations of apathy. :P > I object to all intents to declare apathy in the quoted message. Eh. It was worth a try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -twg
