On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. >>> >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be >>> transferred. >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. >> >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player >> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. >> >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, >> but they still get a lot of power that way. > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed to enable.
-- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
