Peter Cooper Jr. on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:03:59 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] Proposal: Fun with Factions

"Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 6/26/07, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>   So, here's my attempt to codify agreements in such as way that they
>>   don't break things too much. The idea is that a Player can be a part
>>   of only one Faction at a time, so that should stop people from being
>>   a part of a bazillion groups at once.
> There should be a better way to handle this than limiting Players to
> one Faction at a time. This seems somewhat restrictive, especially
> considering an agreement in the fashion of Primo Corporation, where a
> given party has only a small fraction of the controlling interest in
> the agreement.

Well, just because your favorite agreement doesn't give people much
incentive to join doesn't mean that my idea is bad. :)

We need to have some limit on the number of factions in the game, and
I think that it needs to be tied to the natural players in the game
somehow. My thinking was that, as Factions, players would have to pick
sides (and with Voting Option 2) would only get to vote through that

Otherwise, agreements with only one B Nomic player will just be

But I could see changing the limit so that each player could be a part
of at most two or three factions instead of one. Would that be better?

>>       * There exists at least one Player of B Nomic who is a party to
>>         the Agreement.
> Why?

Because I want the game to still be about the players of the
game. Again, the idea is that Players join Factions and this Nomic
turns into a team-based game. And otherwise, we have no way to limit
the number of agreements that enter the game.

And also, I separated the definition of Agreement from the definition
of Faction in case somebody wanted to have other kinds of Agreements
that weren't Factions do something in the game.

Peter C.
spoon-discuss mailing list