Creating a sideline - how to adapt the moles to your country's pollies

I wonder if the game could be a combination of "virtual reality Sim" and/or "Zelda game." You could have the option to either embark on quests or maintain your property and mingle about the populated regions, create art (manifest materials) and trade goods.

Sorry, executor, but I haven't gotten to it yet. Even in what I consider a shrug job (albeit a very good one), I do have work to do. I'll check it out tonight.

What do you think of it?

I realized you were being ironic, puzzlelady, but it won't given that most interconnections would be represented by zeroes (no connections), simulation of the interactions of tens of thousands of societal members would be well within the capabilities of today's computers, perhaps even hundreds of thousands. By the time I'm in my 80's, simulating the interactions of 7 billion people will probably be possible.

I had never heard of Conway's Game of Life. Thanks for illuminating.

There are many ideas for the basis of an Atlas Shrugged game and I do like yours.

fairness: "the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness"

Extinction is not the fairness I would want but it is objectively and ultimately fair. It is also provides total equality. It meets both stated goals of "progressive" groups. In fact it is only way to fully achieve both goals.

I totally agree that letting people build themselves up is much more fair then tearing producers down.

I was being ironic, JB. The number of interconnections is probably larger than the number of atoms in the Universe. We live in an interesting world, where so much is possible. Now just find and get everyone to go along with the premises that allow all of us to live happily ever after.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, Solver. I had assumed that some philosophical premises animated your game concept, not just an arbitrary set-up that then runs mindlessly. I was hoping for a game that would require the players to make reasoned moves and changes based on sound principles.

I am well familiar with Conway's Game of Life (I know the man personally) and have even experimented with initial conditions that could result in immortality, though most of them require an infinite grid.

As for fairness that you define as all circles being null in size (nihilism? total extermination?), I respectfully submit that reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator is rather the antithesis of the objectivist value of individual achievement. That is not fair. What we'd like to see is an environment in which each participant (circle) can reach its highest level without diminishing others. In fact, fruitful interactions and trade would enlarge both parties.

Here's another idea. How about starting with Atlas holding the world, and as the game progresses his strength may grow or shrink depending on how the players around him choose rational and "proper" values and actions, or betray them. Players win if Atlas stays strong, and they lose when they get him to the point where he drops the world. I don't see this as in Tetris where you can never win, only hang on longer. In the Atlas game, when the balance in the world reaches a state where all participants can flourish without sacrifices, the world on Atlas's shoulders will light up and glow, and we all win. Otherwise the lights go out and the world crashes.

I cheerfully offer this idea without asking for a patent or royalties. Just put my name in as having suggested it. Now bring on the brilliant programmers, even if it takes longer than September. A game like this is good forever. Conway's Life has been around since 1970 and shows no signs of vanishing, much to his chagrin.

I absolutely love the "classes" idea! You know, in a way, (and somewhat off-topic) I am somewhat reminded of the game "Second Life," the way you can design your own home and make money within the game. Maybe in this one, you choose your class and begin to create your character...and then you get set up with basic funds and have to go and find your niche, your way to make money. Or you could also choose to gamble or to mooch, by collecting some form of "game welfare." Maybe that`s how everyone starts? Then...you can choose either to stay on it (and receive minimal spending privileges within the game) or get a job and start making serious wage.

The two companies featured on pp. 38-43 of this month's Reason Magazine were EVE Online with economist Eyjolfur Gudmundsson (The o in the first name has a hash that goes up and to the right.) and much moreso, Yanis Varoufakis during the time he was with Valve Software.

Varoufakis compares it "to be omniscient, being able to see and know everything that goes on in the economy." You can get economic data in a MUCH shorter period of time under surprisingly controlled conditions.

Susanne and Solver both are quite creative.

You could conceivably have 2 classes of winners - the early loss-leader, who made the most of their illicit gains of rot by garnering the most favor, the best deals from the government, and who pandered the most pull to put them on top of the Funnymoney Trash Heap when it finally all imploded and burned (a'la the Cuffy Meigs-a-millions). The other one would be the one that made it to the gulch with the most real wealth intact, the most integrity/dignity/production points gained (through profitable businesses and productive industries in the Gulch, maybe?) and able to re-start the economy on the outside.

You'd need 2 separate negotiable items - Galt Dollars, and Worthless Chits (bad humor intended) to play both halves of the game.

Possibilities might also include the rotters making such a trash-heap of everything that there may be no second-stage winner... or the Gulchers proving, through good strategy, foresight, and business practice, and overcoming the rotter's evil plans, thereby wiping out the early-stage winner.

Conceivably, each player could try for a "double win" -- a true schizophrenic's dream come true, where one side could rule the s#!theap, and then also restore the world - in essence, playing both games at the same time.

You can include a number of point systems.
I was thinking that looters could use favor points to attract the most hard-hitting pull peddlers.
For producers, later in the game, permission to keep or use what they own could only be obtained through using one of these pull peddlers. That is unless you landed in the Gulch by then.

The complexity involved would make it .... just like real life.

Or government enforcer like Kip Chalmers or Cuffy Meigs.

Nice. Heh heh heh.

Gray is neutral, white is good, and black is evil. As a Christian, I rather thought you would say white. Surprise, surprise.

I like chess, but a multi-player game adds so much complexity that it is far less predictable and more like real life.

Favor Points, and you could also have Looter Points. They work against you. Or they appear to work for you in the short term but against you in the long term. Kind of like a race to the bottom.

How about a nice game of chess?

Don't forget you have to have the gov't lackeys throwing in little "cookies" like corrupt politicians, inept watchdog agencies, and draconian laws. God, what a mine field!!!

I didn't add an upvote to "balance things out", I gave you an upvote because I like the idea of an AS based video game. :-)