Talk:382
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(Response) |
(→Debate) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I like it so far...one question i have is what the purpose of increasing the adult population by one...if there is a future use for population, i think an increase of more than one would be relevant. I also had been contemplating reducing the stages of life to a more manageable (for the scorekeeper) to 3 or 4 stages...something i wouldn't mind some feedback on... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT) | I like it so far...one question i have is what the purpose of increasing the adult population by one...if there is a future use for population, i think an increase of more than one would be relevant. I also had been contemplating reducing the stages of life to a more manageable (for the scorekeeper) to 3 or 4 stages...something i wouldn't mind some feedback on... --[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 21:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
: I don't think it's really necessary to increase the population of a Canton to reflect the individual Players residing there; for these numbers to become statistically significant we'd need a completely unmanageable number of Players (probably at least a few thousand). I've been thinking that perhaps the score and/or popularity of a Canton's leader (and, if this passes, I suppose its resident non-leader players) could be made to have an effect on monthly population growth, which would make things more interesting (at present, the 4 outer Cantons will all continue to have the exact same populations as each other forever). Combining the ages into fewer categories sounds good to me, though. We could even make the population growth formula more complicated so we have the same growth rate we have now with fewer different categories (for example, Elderly and Ancient could be combined into a single category and have 2/3 of that category die each month or combine Infant and Young and have 1/2 of that group move up to the next group each month.) I suggest the last paragraph be removed from this proposal (but I'd like to wait until this passes to revise the population system, so that Player residency can be included in a new system) [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 10:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT) | : I don't think it's really necessary to increase the population of a Canton to reflect the individual Players residing there; for these numbers to become statistically significant we'd need a completely unmanageable number of Players (probably at least a few thousand). I've been thinking that perhaps the score and/or popularity of a Canton's leader (and, if this passes, I suppose its resident non-leader players) could be made to have an effect on monthly population growth, which would make things more interesting (at present, the 4 outer Cantons will all continue to have the exact same populations as each other forever). Combining the ages into fewer categories sounds good to me, though. We could even make the population growth formula more complicated so we have the same growth rate we have now with fewer different categories (for example, Elderly and Ancient could be combined into a single category and have 2/3 of that category die each month or combine Infant and Young and have 1/2 of that group move up to the next group each month.) I suggest the last paragraph be removed from this proposal (but I'd like to wait until this passes to revise the population system, so that Player residency can be included in a new system) [[User:Wooble|Wooble]] 10:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| - | : I removed the Population change provision as suggested. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT) | + | :: I removed the Population change provision as suggested. [[User:BobTHJ|BobTHJ]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT) |
| + | ::: I'm still don't know that i necessarily like what i've created, but [[User:Tucana25/My proposal workspace|HERE]] was something I'd thought about for population growth related to popularity...--[[User:Tucana25|Tucana25]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 18:25, 27 April 2007
Proposed by BobTHJ 20:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This proposal is designed to assign each player to a Canton for future rules that will actually give the Population and Canton system some use. Discussion on this proposal shall remain open through 00:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT) --BobTHJ 20:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Debate
I like it so far...one question i have is what the purpose of increasing the adult population by one...if there is a future use for population, i think an increase of more than one would be relevant. I also had been contemplating reducing the stages of life to a more manageable (for the scorekeeper) to 3 or 4 stages...something i wouldn't mind some feedback on... --Tucana25 21:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't think it's really necessary to increase the population of a Canton to reflect the individual Players residing there; for these numbers to become statistically significant we'd need a completely unmanageable number of Players (probably at least a few thousand). I've been thinking that perhaps the score and/or popularity of a Canton's leader (and, if this passes, I suppose its resident non-leader players) could be made to have an effect on monthly population growth, which would make things more interesting (at present, the 4 outer Cantons will all continue to have the exact same populations as each other forever). Combining the ages into fewer categories sounds good to me, though. We could even make the population growth formula more complicated so we have the same growth rate we have now with fewer different categories (for example, Elderly and Ancient could be combined into a single category and have 2/3 of that category die each month or combine Infant and Young and have 1/2 of that group move up to the next group each month.) I suggest the last paragraph be removed from this proposal (but I'd like to wait until this passes to revise the population system, so that Player residency can be included in a new system) Wooble 10:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
