[s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Zarpint amends p1971

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 23, 2004, at 12.30 AM, automailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Zarpint has amended p1971.
>
> ---------------------------------
> Proposal 1971/1: Aux Technology, Comrades, version 2
> A Standard Proposal by Zarpint
> Last modified on nweek 75, nday 6
>
> [[To encourage more technological research. This is a resubmission and 
> modification of my original shelved prop. I've fixed the N-1 thing and 
> replaced Double Voting with a Board Technology.]]
>
> In subsection C of r1639, remove "4. Mining." and "5. Theft." from the 
> list of Moves.
>
> Change the Chutzpah of r1854 to 3.
>
> In r1854:
>
> Add the following after the first set of bullet points:
> "A Technology may have Levels. If so, a Player may have the Technology 
> at any level N, provided N is a positive integer. If N>1, a Player may 
> not have a Technology at Level N unless he previously had it at some 
> Level < N."

I think it makes more sense to require having level N in order to get 
level N+1. Until you have mastered the art of Printing Tildex 3, you 
cannot hope to attain Printing Tildex 4. Also, this still allows 
players to have a single technology at multiple levels, which makes 
many of the technologies down below work strangely - you can buy Extra 
BW 3, or for the same price you can get Extra BW 1 and 2, which has 
exactly the same effect... I would prefer that each player has every 
Technology at some level. Then by default, every player has tech 0 for 
every tech; techs like Masonry can only go to level 1 since there's 
only one level of masonry, while other techs may have higher level caps 
or no cap at all.

> Change the following BLECH delimited text
> BLECH
> "Having a Technology" is defined as possessing an attribute that 
> signifies the Technology to be had.
> BLECH
>
> to the following MMMM delimited text
> MMMM
> A Player having a Technology shall mean that e has an attribute with 
> the same name as that technology.
> If a Technology has Levels, a Player having the Technology at Level N 
> shall mean that e has an attribute whose name is the technology with N 
> appended.
> MMMM

If only I'd bought "Printing Tildex 100000" as a Style Attribute back 
when that was possible...

I think this is still a bit BLECH, though - why not just say that 
Technologies are attributes, and players may have them? Or even just 
that Technologies are Game Objects in general, and players can "have" 
them?

> Add the following "SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED" delimited paragraphs to the 
> end of r1854:
>
> SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED
>
> The following Technologies have Levels:
>
> Playing the Board Game is a Technology that costs 600*N research 
> points for Level N. A Player who possesses Playing the Board Game at 
> Level N may make N moves each checking period instead of 1.

"Playing the Board Game 1" is thus equivalent to what we already have. 
It'd be more immediately useful if Board Gaming N gave you N+1 moves 
per checking period.

> Extra Bandwidth is a Technology that costs 600*N research points for 
> Level N. A Player who possesses Extra Bandwidth at Level N receives 2N 
> extra BW at the beginning of each week.
>
> Printing Tildex is a Technology that costs 800*N research points for 
> Level N. A Player who possesses Printing Tildex at Level N receives 5N 
> extra ~ at the beginning of each week.
>
> Drawing is a Technology that costs 400*N research points for Level N. 
> A Player who possesses Drawing at Level N may draw N extra cards each 
> week.

This one should have a level cap of some sort, because we've been 
decking ourselves often enough as it is, without people drawing 20 
cards each nweek.

Either that or a hand limit.

> SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> This Message was sent automatically by the Wiki.
>  Please do not reply to the sender of this message, as your replies 
> will be ignored. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a 
really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would 
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them 
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, 
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it 
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that 
happened in politics or religion.
      -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address

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