Just to add to this, ribbons are another "single-player game", but like
Zelda, it's immense and complex enough for me to find it interesting enough
to 'play'.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:46 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I'd probably reduce the radiance awards or increase the radiance-to-win
> requirement so that the expected frequency of radiance wins stays more or
> less the same.
>
> In its own way, yes, I believe it solves the problem of votes having a
> strong motivation to vote for radiance interests rather than the body of
> the proposal itself. Unless you're the sort of person who doesn't like it
> when other people win, but I don't think that'll be much of an issue.
>
> I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. In a way, it's just "get 20
> proposals passed to win", which is... fine, but it's pretty passive, boring
> and lonely, in a sense. I don't think that the solution for undesired
> interplayer interactions in a game is to have no
> significant interplayer interactions at all. Bar revolutions, but I'm not
> sure how that would play out in this new meta, and there's also the issue
> where it may become beneficial for some majority to just keep
> winning->revolutioning->winning->revolutioning in a loop.
>
> For example, despite its imbalances, I'm having a lot of fun with
> stamp-trading, and I believe that it's because it caters to my caveman
> desire for interpersonal interaction and games involving it. I don't think
> I'd have as much fun if gaining stamps was just something I could solitaire
> in the background.
>
> If radiance was just as "lonely" as it would be, I'm not sure it's complex
> enough for me to really engage with it. For example, I love Zelda games,
> which are single-player but complex enough to keep my attention, but
> radiance would just become a background "EXP" bar that fills up with tasks
> that seems like people just often do anyways.
>
> That said, I don't think that radiance in its new form would be bad. I just
> don't think it would be great either. Just lukewarm.
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 2:15 AM ais523 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI 1.5, title "Noncompetitive Radiance", and
> > the following text:
> > {{{{
> > In rule 2656, amend
> > {{{
> > Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100
> > or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game. Then,
> > eir radiance is set to 0, and all other players' radiance are set
> > to half their current value rounded down.
> > }}}
> > to
> > {{{
> > A player whose radiance is 100 or more CAN by announcement Become
> > Radiant, as long as e correctly specifies the amount of eir
> > Radiance in the same message. When a player Becomes Radiant, e
> > wins the game; and when a player wins the game by this mechanism,
> > eir Radiance is flipped to 0.
> > }}}
> >
> > [Removes the reset on radiance; see my recent these for arguments on
> > why I think this is beneficial. There are also two bugfixes: one that
> > handles the situation where a higher-powered rule blocks the win, and
> > one that prevents radiance wins being accidentally triggered by, e.g.,
> > the Herald's report when the Herald has 100 radiance.]
> > }}}}
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
>
