Re: [s-d] RFC: The Grid

[Aquarion <nicholas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

all players wrote:
> shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>   
>>> I think it looks like a lot of fun, however I'm worried that mobility
>>> will be hard. You allow players to move from rX to rY if and only if
>>> rY defines a term that is used in rX; this creates a directed graph
>>> on which the players can move. Glancing over the current rules, it
>>> seems to me that everyone will eventually end up trapped in R1
>>>       
>> It's not as bad as that.  You can move from rX to rY if rX defines a
>> term in rY +or+ rY defines a term in rX.  So all paths go both ways.
>> And in any case you always have the option of dropping out of the game
>> (moving to null) and then choosing a new starting RTL.
>>
>>     
>>> I don't know how hard it would be implement this, but what about
>>> connecting the rules in an undirected graph where rX connects to rY
>>> if they have at least three words of five or more letters in common?
>>>       
>> I think that would be too easy.  And not nearly as elegant: having
>> navigation  depend on the spelling rather than the actual rules.
>>
>>     
>>> Or perhaps we could bring back Keywords, where each rule has a list
>>> of keywords telling what it relates to (for example, r2 might have
>>> the keywords "Proposals", "Voting", "Players"), and you can move to
>>> rules that share keywords with your current rule.
>>>       
>> I thought of that, and it's doable.  We could have other ruletag-only
>> sections for each rule, too.  "this rule deals with
>> judgements....there is a blue frog here".  But I think we should leave
>> that as an add-on.  I'd rather get the basics working without it.
>> Besides, I like the 1-1 correspondance between the ruleset and the
>> gameboard; the idea that to change the gameboard, you actually have to
>> change the ruleset - at least for navigation....
>>
>>     
>>> Also, it seems like in general this game will make you lose more
>>> points than you gain, because of changing rules, so there doesn't
>>> seem to be a strong incentive to play the game.
>>>       
>> Well, that's easily fixed.  I really haven't worked through the numbers yet.
>>
>>     
>>> We could set up an even weirder system... For example, maybe when
>>> somebody's score tops 100, the player with the *second highest* score
>>> wins.
>>>       
>> Eurgh.  what would the winning strategy be?  A little too random for my tastes.
>>     
>
> Here at B Nomic, we pride ourself on our randomness. :)
>   
The point is not to win, the point is to play. Play first, then win.
> I suspect the winning strategy would involve giving points to other 
> players (there'd probably need to be some kind of clamp or delay to 
> prevent people from trying to immediately give it back...)

As a general point, I'd like the grid more if the X axis was A->U rather 
than 0->19, giving us co-ordinates of A13 rather than 1,13, but that's 
just a personal preference :-)

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss