Subject: Re: MN: Re: (unknown)

From: riffraff@n...
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:06:53 -0500

>> New to this list, but, after looking at the archives for a bit, I
>think I
>> might chime in on some of what's been floating around.
>
>Welcome.

Indeed! Any relation to the movie-directing David Lynch? :)

>
>> I'd say keep time, but with a fixed increment per turn, perhaps an
>hour.
>> (This limits you to 24 different possible times per day, rather than
>> 288, and eliminates the need for any addition whatsoever.)
>
>This is completly the opposite of my stance. If we _must_ have time, I
>would keep it for Turn length regulation only. Game time just doesn't
>give enough back to be worth it. Ideally I would leave time out.

I'm a little confused... I think what David meant was to use time for turn
length regulation, as you say, with a limit of one hour per turn. That way
we only have to count Time in 1-hour increments.

That's pretty much what we had before, except that if you didn't use the
whole hour, only the used fraction would be added to the clock. Thinking
about it, the idea of counting a full hour no matter how much you actually
use has its attractions - not only would it be simpler to keep track of,
but the day would wind on much quicker, thus bringing Off-Peak Hours and
such into play more often.

>Snow's stupid idea of the day: No restriction of the number of Actions
>a person can have in a Turn. Obviously some things need regulating
>(number of shunts per Turn say), but why not let Players do as much as
>their Tokens will permit them?

Well, around about the endgame, people usually have a pretty good stash of
Tokens saved up... some pretty elaborate and crazy moves would ensue,
without anything you could do in defense...

>
>> And, in parting, one breif thought about the endgame: provide a
>chance for
>> someone else to sneak into Mornington Crescent before the person
>with 3
>> golds gets there,
>
>I think if someone has gone to all the effort of getting 3 golds e
>should be the only one entitled to win. Certainly there should be ways
>to stop em, but it hardly seems fair to allow the win to be stolen.

Agreed. I guess that's why <Opening MC> only lasted as long as the current
Player's turn.

--Riff

"This calls for a subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--Vyvyan, "The Young Ones"

---

From: David Lynch <david@d...>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 21:37:48 -0500 (CDT)

> Indeed! Any relation to the movie-directing David Lynch? :)

No, but I'll gladly take credit for the movies. :)

> we only have to count Time in 1-hour increments.

Actually, I wasn't necessarialy approaching time as an action-limiting
measure, but it did appear to work effectively. If were to go with time, I
think I'd want to eliminate the speed limit as general rule, as you'd be
limited already in a similar fashion. 

> such into play more often.

This was the primary thought. It lets you do off-peak, weekends, and
holidays, but eliminates a lot of the complexity.

> Agreed. I guess that's why <Opening MC> only lasted as long as the current

I honestly have no idea where I came up with the stolen win idea. I like
the idea of being able to stop the person, perhaps make <Opening MC> a
post-turn move, valid for one round, but you get some of it back if you
don't manage to land there on your next turn.

--
David Lynch

---

From: "Snow" <snowl@s...>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 12:31:19 +0100

> such into play more often.

Well, that certainly simplifies game time. I still don't think it's
worth the effort, but with hour increment the effort is so little I
won't argue over it (for now).

> without anything you could do in defense...

Don't people have a stash of Tokens because they can't play them
quickly enough. If not, does it matter as long as everyone is the
same. Or those who don't have lots of Tokens will probably have spent
them earlier to get in a better position. Or maybe because Tokens
hardly ever leave the game (they just go on Token Stacks) the game
saturates.

-- Snow
God is broken.