Talk:384
From Nomicapolis
(opening voting) |
(→For) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
=== For === | === For === | ||
<!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | <!--DO NOT REMOVE-->{{editsection|4|Add FOR vote}} | ||
| + | # [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 18:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
# <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | # <!--ADD YOUR NAME HERE--> | ||
Revision as of 22:26, 8 May 2007
Proposed By BobTHJ 01:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This is an effort to add some randomness and variation to the population figures. My thought is that the Fortune value (and possibly Seed) could also be used for other semi-random calculations as well. Yes it is somewhat complicated, and hopefully not too burdensome for the Scorekeeper. If you don't like it, give me some other suggestions. Debate will end on May 6th. -- BobTHJ 01:21, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Debate
I'm not sure I like using the Recent Changes page as the source of pseudorandom numbers. For one thing, I personally use Enhanced Recent Changes, which makes it more difficult to count up a specific number of changes. More importantly, I think that anything the Scorekeeper does should be deterministic and not subject to whim; under this proposal a Scorekeeper could manipulate the Fortune values by making the right number of edits (changing the Recent Changes page) prior to calculating the Fortunes, possibly getting an advantage in population for his own Canton. I think it's probably also not a great idea to be introducing more complexity into the Population system before it's actually good for anything in terms of gameplay. Wooble 13:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I think i am of like mind...i'd much rather have something simpler...like number of page views on HEY I'VE GOT 462 VISITORS TO MY PAGE! ...so lets add them all together until you get a number 1-10 (4+6+2=1+2=3) times ten for a value of 30...or something...although if we are assigning a value something akin to money, i'd rather have it based on points or popularity or some sort of industry... --Tucana25 02:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
By the way...i don't know if it is an accident since there is no timestamp, but it says debate is now over in the debate section...? --Tucana25 03:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Looking at the history, that was on this page from the beginning. I can only assume it was mistakenly copied and pasted, since the same edit proposed debate until May 6 and BobTHJ didn't add a vote himself... Wooble 08:52, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, sorry. Copy/paste error. Let me revise this to make it simpler. My intent was not to model money, but 'luck factor'. BobTHJ 10:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
OK, I modified this to simply provide a means of generating semi-random numbers for any purpose. BobTHJ 10:27, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
I think i follow the meaning...i'm good with it, I suppose --Tucana25 23:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Vote
Debate is closed, this proposal must now be voted on. Wooble 10:03, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
For
- BobTHJ 18:26, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Against
Abstain
