Round 9/History: Difference between revisions

Line 432:

After the first Break Age, we began to understand the true nature of the ducks. During this period we realized how broken the entire ruleset was. We started joking about how much we'd ruined the game and about how rarely we actually had a good picture of what the gamestate had become. We had to accept this fate that we'd built for ourselves as we persevered.

A hallmark of this period's legislation was patching to fix small perceived ruleset issues rather than broad new mechanics.

=== Cannibalism to Prevent Thievery ===

Line 450:

Line 452:

One bit of legislation that came about from this debacle was a proposal to allow players to assign names and ponds to their ducks if either was undefined, which passed without incident (Nyhilo, Proposal Pond Stuck Pond Suck, 2 Mar 2021).

=== Targeting the Rich Again ===

Since the thievery quack attack never did much, a new solution to get back at the duck owners was devised: finally cut the benefits of repeatedly sending ducks out on scouting missions. Nyhilo's proposal did this by heightening the requirements to gain a duck from a scouting mission (Proposal Duck Immigration Policies, 2 Mar 2021). This was later fixed so that the final sentence made better sense (Nyhilo, Proposal Duck Immigration Policies (Oops Edition), 7 Mar 2021).

{{Proposal Box

|name=Duck Immigration Policies

|text=

Replace the last sentence of the Scouting rule

:Upon return, the potential quacks are added to the returning duck's total quacks, benefits and costs the duck provides to the player are unpaused, and as long as they have not cut their losses, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.

with the following:

:Upon return, the potential quacks are added to the returning duck's total quacks and benefits and costs the duck provides to the player are unpaused. If the quacks gained from the duck's potential quacks is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.

}}

{{Proposal Box

|name=Duck Immigration Policies (Oops Edition)

|text=

I uh, proposed this rule change wrong. Oops.

Replace the following sentence of the Scouting Rule

:If the quacks gained from the duck's potential quacks is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.

with the following

:If the roll to retrieve the duck is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.

}}

The effect this legislation actually had was debatable. By the time this was proposed, Wotton already owned twelve ducks, a number that no one would even be able to sniff. Additionally, accumulating ducks provided no actual advantage other than more places to store quacks and legislation to encourage high duck counts would likely be unpopular with everyone but Wotton.

== References ==

@@ Line 432: / Line 432: @@
 After the first Break Age, we began to understand the true nature of the ducks. During this period we realized how broken the entire ruleset was. We started joking about how much we'd ruined the game and about how rarely we actually had a good picture of what the gamestate had become. We had to accept this fate that we'd built for ourselves as we persevered.
+A hallmark of this period's legislation was patching to fix small perceived ruleset issues rather than broad new mechanics.
 === Cannibalism to Prevent Thievery ===
@@ Line 450: / Line 452: @@
 One bit of legislation that came about from this debacle was a proposal to allow players to assign names and ponds to their ducks if either was undefined, which passed without incident (Nyhilo, Proposal Pond Stuck Pond Suck, 2 Mar 2021).
+=== Targeting the Rich Again ===
+Since the thievery quack attack never did much, a new solution to get back at the duck owners was devised: finally cut the benefits of repeatedly sending ducks out on scouting missions. Nyhilo's proposal did this by heightening the requirements to gain a duck from a scouting mission (Proposal Duck Immigration Policies, 2 Mar 2021). This was later fixed so that the final sentence made better sense (Nyhilo, Proposal Duck Immigration Policies (Oops Edition), 7 Mar 2021).
+{{Proposal Box
+|name=Duck Immigration Policies
+|text=
+Replace the last sentence of the Scouting rule
+:Upon return, the potential quacks are added to the returning duck's total quacks, benefits and costs the duck provides to the player are unpaused, and as long as they have not cut their losses, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.
+with the following:
+:Upon return, the potential quacks are added to the returning duck's total quacks and benefits and costs the duck provides to the player are unpaused. If the quacks gained from the duck's potential quacks is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.
+}}
+{{Proposal Box
+|name=Duck Immigration Policies (Oops Edition)
+|text=
+I uh, proposed this rule change wrong. Oops.
+Replace the following sentence of the Scouting Rule
+:If the quacks gained from the duck's potential quacks is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.
+with the following
+:If the roll to retrieve the duck is 12 or higher, the owner of the duck will obtain a new duck along with their existing duck.
+}}
+The effect this legislation actually had was debatable. By the time this was proposed, Wotton already owned twelve ducks, a number that no one would even be able to sniff. Additionally, accumulating ducks provided no actual advantage other than more places to store quacks and legislation to encourage high duck counts would likely be unpopular with everyone but Wotton.
 == References ==
 <references />