Alright, here's where I am right now. Our current economy is just isn't working. It was a good attempt, an interesting attempt, and I very much appreciate it. However, it isn't working. If there were an obvious fix, we would have implemented it by now. Any fix would require a near total rewrite of the entire system. We've tried several smaller tweaks, and none of them have worked. We have no idea whether any other change, no matter how large, would actually fix our present problems.
At this point, I think we have a sunk costs situation. I liked land. I wanted it to work. I tried very hard to help it work. Trigon, please understand that I am not somehow fundamentally biased against land, and am definitely not trying to disparage it. It's just that when I see something not working and all attempts to fix it fail, my urge is to switch back to something that I know to work. After a failure, I tend to become less experimental. The simplest, cleanest feeling option at this point is to just revert the change with introduced the problem (i.e. burn everything). IMO, anything else is motivated by our desire to make what we have work, rather than an evaluation of all options based upon their individual merits. Now, after doing that, we have this old system lying around, politics. It seemed fun and interesting when we played it. It had a few bugs in it which we could fix. It's almost completely unused, so we aren't bored of it yet. I wish we never repealed it in the first it in the first place because of how fun it felt to play when it was around. Basically, it feels like a mystical promised land which happens to already exist and be easy to reach. You can see why, under these circumstances, I think it should be implemented immediately. I'm not in the mood for something new, I want something that already works. This is the only minigame that I have, in all my time playing, enjoyed. I therefore believe that we should repeal land and then, separately, reimplement politics. Carthago delenda est. -Aris On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 9:40 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/30/2018 10:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 22:25 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> That's actually a really cool idea. One thing, though, I think a week is > >> too short. That would be as few as 0 and as many as 2, but generally 1 > >> report per instance. Unless we decided to get rid of all weekly > >> Cartographor reports and instead do a new report for each instance, > >> which is just messy. > >> > >> Also, that short of games would require constant monitoring of your > >> opponents' actions, and I'll tell you what, I sure can't focus that much > >> time on watching this game. Usually, I have less than an hour a day I > >> can focus on Agoran business. > >> > >> That's why I said about a month. It's long enough that you can fit > >> several reports in there, and you don't have to be constantly monitoring > >> your opponents' actions. > >> > >> Of course, I could just be looking at this from the wrong angle and > >> misunderstanding your point, so feel free to correct. > >> > >> One thing we should definitely keep from this message is the amendments > >> only effect the next round and are easier to do idea. If the goal is > >> repeated iterations, that's a good way to do it. > > > > Did you mean to send this to a-d? You sent it to me privately. (Feel > > free to post this reply publicly too if you wish.) > > Yeah, with my email client, unless I click Reply List, it sends it to > the person the email came from. I wanted it to just fly under the radar > but you noticed. I'm sending this reply to a-d. > > > The reasoning behind a week was to make it so that the subgames didn't > > really matter; you wouldn't be forced to participate in all of them to > > keep up, just when you were actively going for something. I guess > > they'd be similar to auctions (one very old ruleset had an auction > > mechanism that worked similarly to this). > > > > I kind-of had the idea that people would think "oh, I need to pend a > > proposal, let's try to win this week's subgame". Come to think of it, > > giving players an advantage in the subgame if they hadn't participated > > in the previous subgame would help make this sort of gameplay even more > > clear. > > I think I'd still prefer a slower subgame. If each iteration was so > fast-paced it could be over in a week, I wouldn't be able to join any of > them and also they couldn't be very mechanically complicated, whereas if > they were longer and slower-paced I might be able to actually join a few > of them and they could be more mechanically interesting because people > would be able to actually digest what was happening. > > Perhaps we could periodically give rewards to leaders to keep with your > theme of trying to gain a quick victory. > > Or maybe we just need to turn land into a completely different subgame. > > -- > Trigon
