Subject: MN: Re: Sv: Token quantity discussions

From: kevan@d...
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:16:30 -0000

>True. This is why I thought it was a good idea to bring in timed moves -
>so that people who make longer moves naturally get to make fewer Actions
>(without spending a blue to extend their move). But this was shot down -
>I think because people didn't like the fact that you had to pay on a
>sliding scale for moving. 

I didn't like the complexity of it, myself; having to perform a fiddly
bit of maths to work out how much time you had left in your Turn. Although
the idea was a good one, the implementation seemed less elegant than it
might have been.

>With this discussion in mind, would people accept a proposal to make
>more complex Moves take more time? The "velocity = more distance in same
>time" argument doesn't hold too much water in my opinion - LV is a
>convenient term not a hard and fast rule.

This is fair enough; it's just hard to change mental gear, when we've
always considered Moves to be of a fixed time length, and thus LV to
be a literal velocity rather than a Move distance limit.

>Consider: if the problem we're having here is that it's more beneficial
>to move at high LVs, then we shouldn't stop people moving that fast - we
>should be adding a downside to moving fast. Longer duration of Move is
>the best solution I can see. If someone has a better one, then please
>state or Propose it, but without that I think we're not dealing with the
>whole problem. 

But the issue, unless I've lost track of things, isn't "How can we make
high LVs less powerful?" - it's "Let's not make high LVs any more
powerful by reproposing the large bonuses for passing more than five
Interchanges." I think things are alright as they stand, really.

Kevan

--
kevan@d...
http://members.xoom.com/asabove

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/l-nomic-d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications