acka-research Digest Thursday, January 28 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:44:30 -0500 (EST) Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer wrote: > Removal of cycle wins might reduce the desire for players to spend time > thinking up fun ideas, as their "value" falls slightly. > Suggestions for changes to make: > > Part the First: Changes to Points Wins > > 1. Magic Number is "permanently" fixed at 500. > Pros: No more messy rules fiddling around with prime numbers and the Magic > Number every cycle. > Cons: Makes achieving a points win significantly harder. Since I think point win should be made much harder - if only to put the on a par with other winning methods, I don't see that as a con :) I did submit a proposal which would've caused the MN to spiral up.... > 2. At end of Cycle scores are reset to half previous score, except for the > winner. Each player receives A$ equal to their change in income. > Pros: Encourages players to submit stuff even in a "dead" Cycle (i.e. one > in which a CWCFJ is awaiting the end of its appeal period). > Cons: More difficult for the Scorekeeper. Not particularly - most of this stuff is done with a script - I'd go insane if I had to enter the name of every plaer who voted on a proposal by hand... such an amendment is rather easy to implement.... not that I like the idea tho; Make Wins (point) Harder!!! > Makes achieving a points win > easier. > K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:26:24 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: > This parallels something I've been considering for a while which would > make each player have a 'magic number' dependant on how many cycles they > had already won. > Pros: makes points wins easier for new player. (and all of Slakko's pros) > Cons: makes points wins harder for older players. I don't think this is a con (IMESHO) > (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) > Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 > Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). > (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe > not exponential) (suggestions?) I think Level=# of _point_ cycle wins a player has + 1 Ie point wins should get progressively harder according to how many times a player has managed it; In a system dependent on point wins alone an exponential function isn't a bad idea :) In a system that considered all wins some thing linear may be more appropriate.... I'm undecided which I prefer. > At the end of the cycle points don't change at all, so they accumulate > linearly and no player's winning is dependent on any other players. A$ > are paid based on overall point change per player per cycle (same as now). I don't think players should be guaranteed a win by points win - a competitive system makes it more interesting; especially one in which pervious winners receive a handicap. K 2 ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4042 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:31:51 -0500 (EST) Hey... It works :) K 2 ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter > has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5. > Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well. > > Proposal 4042 > On prophesies and Harf > K 2 > Due: Thu Feb 4 09:28:39 1999 > > This is a Modest Proposal. > > {{Transfer a randomly determined number of points between 0 and 10 from > K 2 to a randomly determined player.}} > > {{[Its been used once - it was impossible the first time and it was > missed the third.. now that Tornadoes are no longer a problem we could > prolly afford to have this > occur a little more frequently.... Once every three months shouldn't > hurt? The next equinox is on: ~ March 20, 14:54 EST ]}} > > {{[K 2 - Astrologically Confused :-)]}} > > Insert 'and at the equinox' after 'On Solstice day' in the first > sentence of Rule 1006-1 (Prophets and Prophecies). > > Replace the first paragraph of 6-5-7 (Son I am able though you scare me > / Watch beloved / Watch me scare you though / Able am I son) with: > " > The Office of Scaremonger is an optional, political office. > > The duties of Scaremonger are to promote panic and foment fear. They > should take every opportunity to point out the crashing of the game, > officers failing to perform > their duties, and the End of the World. > > While any player may publicly announce the game crashing significance > embodied by an encroaching Solstice or Equinox, it is a privilege of the > Scaremonger to > receive 5 points the first time they do so, 3 to 7 days prior to a > particular Solstice or Equinox. > > If the Scaremonger fails to adequately perform their duties, another > player may call a Test of the Emergency Broadcast System. > " > > {{[Half each rolls shod bay oozed off ten.]}} ------------------------------ From: Jonathan David Amery Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:35:46 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > > (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) > > Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 > > Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). > > (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe > > not exponential) (suggestions?) > > I think Level=# of _point_ cycle wins a player has + 1 > Ie point wins should get progressively harder according to how many times a > player has managed it; In a system dependent on point wins alone an exponential > function isn't a bad idea :) In a system that considered all wins some thing > linear may be more appropriate.... I'm undecided which I prefer. How about: ? -- Jonathan D. Amery, http://www.trinhall.cam.ac.uk/~jda23/home.html ##### Wild Card of Acka, member of SPAM, wearing Silly Agenda Hats. o__####### Holding the Silver Key to the Vault. \'####### Standing between the light and the dark, the candle and the flame. ------------------------------ From: K 2 Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4042 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 09:47:18 -0500 (EST) I can feel my fun quotient dropping... K 2 sulking ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter > has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5. > Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well. ------------------------------ From: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4042 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:38:02 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > Hey... It works :) > > K 2 > Hush and eat yer bread, GoalByrd. IB ------------------------------ From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4042 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:49:35 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, K 2 wrote: > I can feel my fun quotient dropping... > > K 2 > sulking > > ackabot@ackanomic.org wrote: > > > This proposal is automatically retracted by Rule 2 because its submitter > > has 5 proposals in the queue and his proposal characteristic is 5. > > Its submitter gets a day in Gaol as well. I think that 5 proposals per week per player is not an excessively harsh limit - especially when you consider that you can increase it to 6 at a cost of A$1000. -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4026 accepted From: Joseph DeVincentis Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:59:04 -0500 (EST) > Proposal 4026 > > Yes/No vote characteristic totals: 35-20: proposal accepted > > Yes: > Slakko (5) Duh, this is supposed to be using the voting characteristics, which are 2 for each player except Eric., who just reduced his to 1. The prop passes regardless and Wild Card is repealed. The other 2 props that went through earlier today were unaffected by the change in rules. JT pointed out that P4023 replaced the wrong paragraph in Rule 2, replacing the "all proposals shall be voted on" one instead of the "required number of votes". However, I think we have sufficient other rules and/or game custom to continue voting on all non-retracted, non-deemed-invalid proposals, and the presence of the "required number of votes" paragraph does not conflict with the one about voting characteristic unless there's some other definition of the required number of votes for a proposal to pass elsewhere in the rules which conflicts with the new voting characteristic one. /dev/joe ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #23 **********************************