On 06/05/2011 02:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 5 June 2011 02:08, wrote:
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the
points+promises economy from a combination of well-tested and
innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss
it ou
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/04/2011 09:06 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> > > What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it
> > > that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the
> > > rest of
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 5 June 2011 02:08, wrote:
> > Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy
> > from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy.
> > Do we really have to toss it out already?
>
> We are the g
On 11-06-04 07:19 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitra wrote:
Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy
condiments on a solid, grindy base.
FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise.
When comex wrote a perfect
On 11-06-04 07:19 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitra wrote:
Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy
condiments on a solid, grindy base.
FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise.
When comex wrote a perfect
On 5 June 2011 03:10, Pavitra wrote:
> Is it possible that 'grindy' is a virtue here? Maybe we need light, goofy
> condiments on a solid, grindy base.
FWIW, I never played the AAA because it looked intensely boring to memorise.
When comex wrote a perfect-play algorithm for Bayes in about forty
l
On 06/04/2011 09:06 PM, ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it
that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the
rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets th
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:03 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> What was it about the AAA specifically that made it successful? Was it
> that it was run in the private sector and so mostly insulated from the
> rest of the ruleset? Was it that it had several types of assets that
> interacted with each other
On 06/04/2011 08:55 PM, ais523 wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:51 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises
economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay
into degeneracy. Do we re
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:51 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises
> > economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay
> > into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out alr
On 06/04/2011 08:08 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises
economy from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay
into degeneracy. Do we really have to toss it out already?
Apathy is a specific problem, and we should look for a
On 5 June 2011 02:08, wrote:
> Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy
> from a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy.
> Do we really have to toss it out already?
We are the game's worst enemy.
Incidentally, apathy is the only thing turning the points+promises economy from
a combination of well-tested and innovative gameplay into degeneracy. Do we
really have to toss it out already?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 4, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 4 June 2011 18:07, Pavitra
On 4 June 2011 18:07, Pavitra wrote:
> (On the other hand, I seem to remember that the People's Bank of Agora
> failed spectacularly, so perhaps a bit of fuzz is a good thing.)
Only because the economy as a whole collapsed due to apathy. The PBA
had bugs, mostly in its recordkeeper, but it was so
On 06/04/2011 03:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Rule 1946/9 (Power=1)
Distribution of Voting Entitlements
That strikes me as the type of usually-close-enough approach that tends
to work best in practice, but I still feel like we can do better than that.
(On the other hand, I seem to remember that
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:10 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> > > Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the
> > > total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the
>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> As another take, the number of coins could be directly tied to the
> number of players; if a player leaves, all their coins are destroyed,
> and then N coins or the total amount of coins in everything's
> possession are destroyed so that the le
On 06/03/11 22:26, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
The second option would probably be more work than it's worth for the
recordkeepor.
And has an unfortunate effect if all of Wooble's coins are owned by others.
-scshunt
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 22:10 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> > Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the
> > total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the
> > latter, what happens if someone deregisters with f
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the
> total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the
> latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins?
There are 21 million units
On 4 June 2011 06:10, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Not infinitely divisible; not sure about quantity of coins. Not yet sure how
> to handle players coming in and out - thoughts?
Aww; infinitely divisible sounds fun.
Wrt players registering, you could just rob everyone else, and
similarly redistribute ever
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions, such as
> raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person maligned (the
> author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into some system of
> roughly equally d
On 06/03/11 22:01, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Is it infinitely divisible? If not, how many units are there? Is the
total quantity fixed, or is the ratio of coins to players fixed? If the
latter, what happens if someone deregisters with fewer than N coins?
Not infinitely divisible; not sure about q
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 21:37 -0700, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions,
> such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person
> maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into
> some system of roughly equal
I kind of want to experiment with a zero-sum currency. Some actions,
such as raising the AI for a proposal, would be paid to the person
maligned (the author of the proposal). Other actions would be paid into
some system of roughly equally distributing officer salaries.
Thoughts?
-scshunt
25 matches
Mail list logo
