Wonko on 1 Jan 2002 02:31:17 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Yet another form of bandwidth

on 12/31/01 3:23 PM, Greg Ritter at gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> No, if a player makes 0 proposals then they formula would be ((7*0)-35) or
> -35. At which point, the second sentence kicks in: "If 7n-35 is less than
> zero, eir score shall remain the same." So no change to the score. If they
> had proposed 6 proposals then the formula would be ((7*6)-35) or 7. Greater
> than zero, so they'd lose 7 points .... of course they also gain 3d6 points
> if the proposal passed, so if the sixth proposal proposal passed they'd
> score 3d6 - 7.
> Mathematically, it functions as (I believe) the author intended....but I'm
> still not going to vote for it! :-)
> I'll vote for "bandwidth rationing" -- hard limits on proposals per player
> -- because that's a potential problem that needs solving. This proposal
> just makes dumping dozens of proposals on the game riskier. It's a
> deterrent instead of a "regulation." In this instance -- because there's so
> much room for abuse and decay of game play -- I prefer a regulation.

I suppose there should be a bigger penalty for extra proposals, (maybe 18
points/proposal, so you lose between 0 and 15 points per proposal) but I
still prefer deterrent to regulation, and if there must be a regulation, 3
is too low. I favor five if there's a strong deterrent, and maybe even
something higher if it's a regulated cutoff.

Actually, what if we have both? Something like, you can't make more than 7
proposals, and you lose points for the last three?