Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
NOMIC: GAME THREAD
Posts
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseMy turn! Ahahahahahahahaha. Mwahaha.
My proposal, not yet up for voting, currently in debate phase:
If a player officially submits a review for a game on rpgmaker.net that was created by another player, and rpgmaker.net accepts the review, the player who submitted the review receives 10 points for every star they gave the game in the review's official score, and the player who created the game receives 50 Makerscore. Half-stars are worth 5 points. If the review does not include an official score of the game, the player who submitted the review still receives 5 points.
My proposal, not yet up for voting, currently in debate phase:
If a player officially submits a review for a game on rpgmaker.net that was created by another player, and rpgmaker.net accepts the review, the player who submitted the review receives 10 points for every star they gave the game in the review's official score, and the player who created the game receives 50 Makerscore. Half-stars are worth 5 points. If the review does not include an official score of the game, the player who submitted the review still receives 5 points.
Okay, so I gain 17 (308 - 291) points, then lose 10 because the proposal was defeated, for a net +7.
LockeZ, meustrus and TangledLion all receive 10 points each.
That's an interesting proposal LockeZ, but I feel it's too unfair on players who don't have a game on the site yet. I like that it encourages more reviews, but it's too limited in scope I think. It also encourages people to give more stars than they otherwise might.
LockeZ, meustrus and TangledLion all receive 10 points each.
That's an interesting proposal LockeZ, but I feel it's too unfair on players who don't have a game on the site yet. I like that it encourages more reviews, but it's too limited in scope I think. It also encourages people to give more stars than they otherwise might.
Shinan
4314
Why do they get 10 points? Is it some rule-change I've missed? And your points also. I'm just doing a quick glance here but all I can find is the -10 points.
As part of a turn, the person who made a proposal (me, since DrOctopus was removed from the game, gets (the ordinal number of the proposal - 291) points. There's a rule that states that whenever proposals can be adopted without unanymity (with they can, because we changed it on the first turn) that the players who vote against proposals win 10 points but wait that is winning proposals they don't get 10 points after all oops.
Shinan
4314
Well technically the wording of 305
suggests that the one who made the proposal only gets the (x-291)*(for/total)*2 if the proposal passes. But nowhere is it stated that the person making the proposal gets anything if the proposal fails.
305. Amendment to rule 202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal and multiplying the result by the fraction of favourable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. In the event the proposal is passed, this number is awarded to all advocates of the proposal in question, and double of this number is awarded to the play who suggested this proposal.
suggests that the one who made the proposal only gets the (x-291)*(for/total)*2 if the proposal passes. But nowhere is it stated that the person making the proposal gets anything if the proposal fails.
TangledLion
618
author=Shinan
Well technically the wording of 305305. Amendment to rule 202. One turn consists of two parts in this order: (1) proposing one rule-change and having it voted on, and (2) subtracting 291 from the ordinal number of the proposal and multiplying the result by the fraction of favourable votes it received, rounded to the nearest integer. In the event the proposal is passed, this number is awarded to all advocates of the proposal in question, and double of this number is awarded to the play who suggested this proposal.
suggests that the one who made the proposal only gets the (x-291)*(for/total)*2 if the proposal passes. But nowhere is it stated that the person making the proposal gets anything if the proposal fails.
^Seems somebody discovered my sneaky trick I hid in the wording...
I got confused because the player used to get the points for their proposal regardless of whether it passed or failed; I didn't actually notice the change.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Players who don't have games can submit reviews instead! I made the reward for submitting a review much more important than the reward for receiving one. Currently the only use for 50 Makerscore is converting it into 10 points.
Also yes. It encourages positive reviews. Is that really something you don't want...? Someone might give you a 0.5 star review out of spite otherwise. "He may get Makerscore in the game from this, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let him get it on the site too!"
Also yes. It encourages positive reviews. Is that really something you don't want...? Someone might give you a 0.5 star review out of spite otherwise. "He may get Makerscore in the game from this, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let him get it on the site too!"
It was more that I thought it might encourage people to give more positive reviews than they would have otherwise because they get more points for doing so.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yes, that's intentional. Are you saying you don't like that part, or just pointing it out for the sake of conversation?
Shinan
4314
Well reviews should be ethical and objective so clearly people should not be bribed with Makerscore depending on star ratings.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yes, it's somewhat unfair to people who aren't players in this game of nomic. I expect none of them will vote for the rule. Fortunately, none of them are allowed to vote against it either.
I'll change it if you two won't vote for it as-is, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't. It's unfair in your favor.
I'll change it if you two won't vote for it as-is, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't. It's unfair in your favor.
I'm not a fan of unfairness even if it benefits me. :P I prefer a level playing field, but I guess since there are only 5 players in the game it's sort of a moot point. Fair enough, I guess I can get behind this.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Wait, you don't like unfairness? The hell are you doing playing Nomic? This is a game about creating rules that make it so you're the only person who can win.
Oh well, even if you changed your mind, I don't think Shinan's going to vote for it, and the other two players would have to seriously hustle to get a game out, so it's much harder for them to benefit from it. I guess I'd better change it to be more neutral. This version should still encourage reviews without encouraging unfairness, and without penalizing people for not having a game. I changed the rewards, so the game designer doesn't get anything that the reviewer doesn't also get (since your 50 makerscore can be converted into 10 points if you want), so there's no particular benefit to being the recipient rather than the giver of a review, other than actually getting a review (which is my real goal - get the five of us to write reviews of games).
Proposal 309
If a player officially submits a review for a game on rpgmaker.net that was created by another player (or players), and rpgmaker.net accepts the review, the player who submitted the review receives 50 Makerscore. If the review includes an official score of the game, the player(s) who made the game receive(s) 10 points.
Voting period begins now.
Oh well, even if you changed your mind, I don't think Shinan's going to vote for it, and the other two players would have to seriously hustle to get a game out, so it's much harder for them to benefit from it. I guess I'd better change it to be more neutral. This version should still encourage reviews without encouraging unfairness, and without penalizing people for not having a game. I changed the rewards, so the game designer doesn't get anything that the reviewer doesn't also get (since your 50 makerscore can be converted into 10 points if you want), so there's no particular benefit to being the recipient rather than the giver of a review, other than actually getting a review (which is my real goal - get the five of us to write reviews of games).
Proposal 309
If a player officially submits a review for a game on rpgmaker.net that was created by another player (or players), and rpgmaker.net accepts the review, the player who submitted the review receives 50 Makerscore. If the review includes an official score of the game, the player(s) who made the game receive(s) 10 points.
Voting period begins now.
Shinan
4314
You know what result I want this rule to have? I want someone who is not in the game to receive reviews so that they get points so that a player who is not even in the game wins the game :D
Oh no wait, the wording of players forbids this :( Dammit.
Oh no wait, the wording of players forbids this :( Dammit.
I would have maybe just changed it to any review of a game, regardless of whether it was made by a player, so the other users can get some love too, but I'm okay with that.
I vote yea.
I vote yea.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I vote yea!
