On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 09:25:26PM +0000, kerry_and_ryan@xxxxxxx wrote: > My thoughts: > > If you don't have enough rabbit points to allocate even one to grey > pyramids, go do another demo or whathaveyou. It's fine to just BE a > rabbit and not DO anything, but the Rabbit Point system was designed > specifically to get you to DO things. The Dangling Carrot is exactly > that -- a reward that's shown to you to get you DO something. If you > don't have even one one rabbit point, then you don't deserve the > "exclusive" stash of grey pyramids. I completely disagree with this. If the number of points spent on an item were a fixed amount, I would completely agree with you, but it's not, so a weird game has been introduced, and it's not a fair one. I'm trying to make a distinction between the points you get which mean you've done enough to "deserve" to own the item, and the points which give you a cost reduction. > I like the system pretty much the way it is. Heck, I would even > suggest INCREASING the rabbit point requirements for some things in > the Dangling Carrot. This I could see. I assume it was pretty thoroughly hashed out when the decision was made to make the minimum number of points spent on a rabbit exclusive item one, however. My goal right now is to come up with a structure which removes the incentive to game the system. Once that's in place it should be easier to modify some of the specifics to achieve the desired effects. > BUT... It's not that big of a deal to me one way or the other. I'm > not a Rabbit because it'll get me cool collector's items. I agree with you there. In fact, I should get around to requesting points for Origins and GenCon. It's not about the money for me. It's really about observing a system which is broken and wanting to fix it. Although the fact that there's money involved in the brokenness does make me aware that it's a potential hot-button, and suggests that it's even more important that it be fixed. Marc
Attachment:
pgpPozsmybI4G.pgp
Description: PGP signature