Wikipedia talk:Trading card game/Rules

Centijimbos

(I'm opening up several discussion topics here to get the ball rolling a bit, as it seems to have stopped dead in its tracks.) So we've decided centijimbos (cJ) are a good idea, but we haven't found a good way yet to measure them or quantify them. I'm open to suggestions. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to sort of combine what Isaid for two proposals here. I think that each person should have to play a "User" card at the beginning, before the game starts, to represent them. Each person should also have to put down an "Article" card before the game starts. There should be some sort of system for upgrading articles, which ends up getting you centijimbos. Then, with said centijimbos, you can upgrade your user. You shouldn't need to use them to "buy" an upgrade, though. It should be something like "You now have ten centijimbos. You have the ability to upgrade to x." Also, if we use that, then I think that the numbers should be higher than 1-20, to give us more options, but 10-200 is far too high. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming each player plays only a single user at the beginning of the game, we shouldn't need to have "user" cards in the good deck-- the player himself would serve as the user. Also, I'll check out what the user rights are that are available on Wikipedia and post them here shortly where we can discuss their prices. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, a user card might be a good idea, because we could have user cards that give the user a certain benefit throughout the game. Also, I don't we should have rights cost money, that implies that you can bribe people to get rights. I think having it be "You now have xx centijimbos. That means that you have the ability to upgrade to xx." would be better, and we just keep adding on more centijimbos. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said "price" I was referring to cJ, not money. :) Here are the various user rights categories:

• Blocked users
• Anonymous users
• Registered accounts
• Auto-confirmed and Confirmed
• Bots
• Administrators
• Bureaucrats
• Autopatrolled
• Global rollbacker
• Steward
• Boardvote
• Checkuser
• Oversight
• Transwiki importer
• Importer
• IP-block-exempt
• Edit filter manager
• Account creator
• Rollbacker
• Founder

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure we'll need Boardvote. :P Here are what I think we should use, in the order that you would get them:

• Anonymous
• Registered
• Auto-confirmed
• Rollback/Account creator - I think that these would be ones that you could get at the same time. Rollback is obvious, and I think that with ACC, you could play a second user card. Autopatrolled wouldn't be needed, I think.
• Administrator
• Bureaucrat
• Jimbo!

What do you think? Anyhoo, I'm going to propose a bunch of stuff. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Turning it over in my head, it sounds good. Account creation could be useful in adding bot cards to the Wikipedia space, actually. Other than that, I don't think I'd support the use of account creation for anything else. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Retraction made at 02:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Are we going to include this right? Since so many people are unhappy about the whole thing, I think we should decide if we should add in some sort of Reviewer right, or leave it out. Actually, I can't really think of any way to use it, but I'm sure someone would have an idea. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it could be used as a method for preventing vandalism-related disasters... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought-- it hasn't been fully integrated yet, so we probably ought to leave it out for now and add it later if it becomes integrated. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes vs. users vs. access levels

Alright, I want to clarify we're on the same page, because I feel like we're not.

A user is an entity card capable of performing edits and interacting with disaster items.

A user access level is a card that shows what rights a player has for performing edits and interacting with disaster items. These rights are granted when a player trades in earned cJ.

A userbox is a card that grants a player some special ability. Userboxes are used to represent expertise in an area, temporarily increasing the stats of certain article cards when the player in possession of the userbox works with them, or altering the game in some other way in that player's favor.

Does that clear up any confusion? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was confusion. :) These are all what I thought; I was just thinking that "user" and "userbox" could be cimbined. See my proposal at the bottom of the page; I was thinking something like that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Glad to hear we're on the same page. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now what?

There seem to be no more rule proposals popping up. Does this mean that the rules are at some stage of completion? Shall we move into the next phase, or keep working on this? At any rate, I'm going to to a quick check through the rules, making sure they are all written so that they make sense, and whatnot. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're beginning to have a solid structure, but there's still a lot to be done. Sorry for not visiting often anymore-- I've been busy with homework and also with the automatic taxobox module. It would be nice if we had at least one or two others helping out, but I guess I should just be glad there's one other person sticking with this. :)

I'll have a look through it now as well. This surely can't be a complete ruleset yet! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Found a couple holes needing filled:

• How is a Wikipedia card played?
• A detailed process of fighting vandalism is needed
• A detailed process of fighting vandals is needed

That's all I see at the moment. If it's alright by you, I'll go ahead and auto-approve the idea that a Wikipedia card is played in the same way as an Article card, only it goes to the Wikipedia space instead of the mainspace. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikpedia one seems fine. I'll let you propose the vandalism stuff. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Some things which I dont uderstand

There are some things which I dont understand:

1. Vandalism phase
2. Action phase
3. The paragraph which explains something of serious state of vandalism...
4. And in earning cJ I dont understand the chart.

Please explain me!!!!!--RatonBat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1. During the vandalism phase, any bad cards already in play perform vandalism. This is analogous to Wikipedia getting vandalized while we're offline.
2. During the action phase, you are allowed to perform edits. Following each edit you make, a bad card is drawn and brought into play as well, representing the constant state of vandalism even while we clean it up. During this phase you may also sacrifice an edit card to address vandalism.
3. If there are too many bad cards in play at once, that's when the game gets dangerously close to ending. If the vandalism stays above a certain level for a full round, the game ends and all players lose.
4. Editing an article advances it to the next rank (not very realistic, but it works. Each time you edit an article, you earn points in the form of centijimbos (cJ). These points are required in order to advance to the next user access level. As you raise your user access level, new options become available, such as creating an article, rolling back vandalism, even releasing bots and deleting bad Wikipedia policies. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have missed one thing. With centijimbos, you do not use them as money; once you have enough, you can upgrade your user, but you never lose any. Also, Bob, I think that we need to clarify something; when you sacrifice an edit card to report vandalism or anything else you would sacrifice one for, do you draw a bad one then, as well? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Originally, I would have said yes. However, I think it would be best if that wasn't a vandalism-producing action-- otherwise, it's Pandora's Box. Guess I'd better go propose that amendment. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be figured out...

... would be the entire system for vandalism. I'm not entirely clear on how it would work; I think that it needs to formally be proposed or explained in the rules. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sacrificing any kind of Edit?

I just had a quick question on sacrificing an Edit card: Does the type of Edit card matter? Bananaclasic (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sacrificial edit can be any edit card, provided the user has the appropriate user access level or minimum edits, whichever is stated on the edit card. Other than that, it doesn't matter what the edit card is. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Instant cards

While discussing a proposal for an instant card, Hi878 and I seemed to have different interpretations of the rules about instant cards. I had thought that one could keep the cards until they were needed; [he/she] thought that, as their name does seem to imply, they are used as soon as they are drawn. [He/she] pointed out that we should move the discussion here before it gets out of hand, as a proposal commentary is definitely not the place to discuss the rules (duh.) Please discuss those rules, any amendments that need to be made, or give me insight about what I'm not understanding. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it should be played the moment it is drawn, as is obvious from what Nicky said above. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, the rule I read was "Instant - special action cards that can be played at any time, designed to interrupt negative actions." If that's what is implied, it's not obvious to me, so it's not obvious to everybody. 'At any time' seems like it literally means 'whenever,' otherwise I think the rule would've said 'when drawn.' —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the rule was misworded, and that the intention was to truly have it be "Instant". ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Instant cards-- at least in my experience-- are cards kept in the hand until the player desires to play them. The card may be played at any time and take effect instantly-- like instant mashed potatoes, to use an analogy. Just add water...and all that jazz. Traditionally, cards of this sort are often able to block an action against a player-- for example, an instant that says "negate a vandalism" could be played as soon as the vandalous card is played, but the instant card would be played at that moment, cancelling out the vandalism before it can take effect. The instant card should then be discarded. My apologies for not explaining this better when I originally proposed the instant class. The only cards played immediately upon turning them over are the cards in the bad deck. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for that explanation. Now that I think about it, that seems fine. By the way, Nicky is having a little bit of trouble with creating cards. I thought I'd let you know, in case he forgets. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicky's a guy?!? :o Lol. Nicky, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page (I'm more likely to see it on this wiki than anywhere else). Also, sorry for my not-very-helpful-ness this week and last week and the next couple weeks-- it's the second half of the semester, and I'm so bogged down with programming right now I don't even want to think about designing vectors at the moment. I promise I'll get back to that once things cool down. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I ought to add that instants traditionally may also be played during another player's turn. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

agreed.--CanvasHat 12:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I use "He" by default, my good sir. It looks a lot better than "s/he" or "xhe" or whatever other creative things people come up with. :P ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I usually make assumptions based upon the apparent gender implied by the name-- most people I know named "Nicky" are female, so it seems a safe guess. But yes, I prefer "he" over "(s)he" or "he or she" any day. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with making assumptions like that is that people can make fun of you if you are wrong. :) It's much easier if you consistantly say "he" unless you know that it is incorrect. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicky is probably laughing hysterically at at least one of us right now...the question is, who? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that I am perfect, it is no doubt you⸮ ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That is more than likely. I'm just that funny. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unbelievably glad that we are in agreement⸮ ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you get Firefox to display that irony mark correctly? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea; I use Safari, and I never have trouble with odd punctuation or symbols. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm laughing at everybody, but I'm not giving out my gender. Does this conversation have anything to do with its title? By the way, it's probably your computer. I use Firefox and never have problems. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 00:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User Access Levels

Are they set in stone at the exclusion of all others, or should we allow in other ones as userboxes? I am of the opinion that we should only use the ones that we have approved; having extra ones as userboxes seems unecessary, and people might accidentally use one when it can't be used, thinking all rights are used in the same way, or something like that. Having them in two different formatss just seems odd. We should just stick with the ones that we have, and if new ones are needed due to a massive influx of article nominations, to the point where we need to expand everything else, they should be added in the same format as the rest. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I'm failing to come up with a decent example of a potential userbox that would hold access rights...or are you referring to the userbox proposal that said "act as autoconfirmed"? If we use userboxes to give someone rights like adminship, etc, it would become too easy to advance along the totem pole. I was thinking more along the lines of rights that are not already included in the game, though I don't know of any off the top of my head that would be appropriate for the game. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking something along the lines of the two that have been proposed. :) I wasn't talking about userboxes adding rights like adminship; I meant that I don't think we should have the not-already-approved rights in the game at all. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, think of the kittens...

• Rule: Umm...Coould we split the cards proposal page into small, more eco-freindly, pages...cuz EVEN using the navbox i can't find anything, and it takes a while to load it, and it has given me the BSoD twice, crashing internet explorer several times. Please, have mercy...
• Dependencies: Well, I mean if IE would stop being such a ------ about it...
• Proposed by: CanvasHat

Comments Well, we certainly can't have BSDs...I'll see what I can do for you. Antony's actually talked about doing this before, but nothing really ever happened. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved several things out, replaced with transclusions. Folks are waiting patiently on me to play a game right now, so I don't have time to mess with that last section, which involves changing all of the hyperlinks. Let me know, though, if this is an improvement so far. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't even edit that page any more. My Internet crashes as soon as I hit the edit page button. On occasion I couldn't even open the page. I'll try to edit from other's houses...no guarantee--CanvasHat 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's as separated now as it's gonna get, with each major section having its own individual page. We could potentially split each proposal into its own page, but that would make watchlist monitoring even worse than it already is. Only suggestion I have for you is to hold back on proposing new cards, then. We've not been keeping up quickly enough to finalize them as quickly as they've been proposed, so the page just expands exponentially. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just updated the top hundred or so listings on that page. The page size has now been reduced by 25% (largely due to rejected proposals), which is the smallest it's been since the beginning of December. Hopefully that'll help you some. But like I said earlier, we've got a TON of proposals right now. The best thing you can do rather than proposing new ones is try to finish the discussions on the 150 or so outstanding discussions. That's a lot of unfinished discussions. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Touché--CanvasHat

Winning

I think that something needs to be clarified in the rules. So far, I have been under the impression that articles go into a general pool, and this seems to be reflected in the rules. However, under "Individual Win" it states that "The first player to promote a personal total of 8 articles to featured status and clean up all vandalism on all featured articles wins." What is meant by "personal total"? Does it mean if you are the one to have made the upgrade to FA? If not, someone should explain it to me. If so, we should specify in the rules that when you upgrade an article to FA, you should move over to your area to show that it counts toward your total. This then brings up another problem: If someone has an FA counting towards their total, if vandalism is placed on it, nobody else will have any motivation to remove it; it will be left for that one player to deal with, and if they have, say 5 FAs, that could be a lot of vandalism for one person to deal with. Other people would no doubt ignore it untill it is at the point where everyone else will lose if it isn't removed. Thoughts, anyone? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting flaw, indeed! Here's my suggestion for fixing it. Ever play "Sorry!"? When a token reaches the home stretch, it's safe; no one can do anything to it. Perhaps we should call featured articles "safe". After all, a featured article on Wikipedia is one of the least likely to show vandalism for more than a few seconds. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that; obviously, Featured Articles can still be vandalised, and making them suddenly invincible seems rather unrealistic. If we can't come up with anything else, then this is fine, would I would prefer a brilliant suggestion that still allows vandalism. Such a brilliant suggestion is obviously beyond me, but I'm sure that, being the amazingly intelligent bunch you all are, you'll be able to come up with one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Two other options come to mind:

• Perhaps the "personal" total should be turned into a composite total. This would allow for strategizing, as featuring the first seven articles would not only help yourself but other players as well, and requiring the winning move to most likely feature multiple articles in a single turn.
• Rather than players taking possession over the articles they've featured, a running score is kept from 0 to 8. Featured articles don't belong to any individual player, but as a player features an article, he receives a point.

Either of these ideas sound good? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I totally forgot about this. :) For the first, if I am reading it right, it makes it a collective win, which I don't want to go near. I do like the second, however. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Major flaw!

Wouldn't the best "bad decks" just contain the minimum number of the least destructive "bad card"? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 04:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but that would take the fun out of it. :) I don't think that will be much of a problem. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I would never play with a deck that didn't have some way to handicap the other players and give me a leading edge! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)