Debate on the rules

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
If the techsteal rule is off, just build a probe team. Some extra work for the Intelligence Director.

There ya go.

[Anodyne]

Yee-haw.

[Method]

fair enough. we can play with it off.

[Anodyne]

But 10 out of 17 have voted for it!

[Juliennew]

Like Tassadar said, we shall re-do the poll with the "yes" and "no" option to be sure of the results. This poll and thread is only for the debate of the rules.

[Anodyne]

[Juliennew]

I re-read the thread and I think this poll isn't as bad as we said before. It reflects quite good the citizens choices.

So we only enable what gets the majority?

We already have to define this.

49 percent of everyone in the AC democracy game vote FOR Cooperative Victory because they like it Well, 51 percent of the people dont like it. Because there is no "no" option, that 51 percent is never heard and, well, cooperative victory passes (probably, depending if Im understanding everything correctly)

No, it won't pass because it didn't obtain the majority of the votes (I think a rule should be taken if 51% or 66% of the people voted for it)

What if we want Blind Research AND Cooperative Victory?

You stick the 2 rules as it is a multiple choices poll

The "No" option is equivalent here in not sticking the rule when you vote. So if the rule doesn't obtain 51% or 66% (depending on the rate we will institute), we don't take it. The rules that obtains the majority will be instituted for the game.
We will need to re-do the poll and explain clearly in the first thread the rule of the poll but I don't think we should complicate it with the "yes" and "no" option.

[Method]

faction restart is the only one above 66.66

[AdamTG02]

I oppose techsteal because, with techsteal off, probe teams, HSA, PROBE rating all gain an added importance. Also, on games where I have techsteal on I am always afraid of sharing tech with an ally, because an enemy might steal it. I'd rather avoid that in the demo game.

[Nubclear]

sorry if i sound annoyed....

No, it won't pass because it didn't obtain the majority of the votes (I think a rule should be taken if 51% or 66% of the people voted for it)

i said 49 percent of all the people here. so if they all voted yes it would win. not if it got 49 percent of the votes in the poll, i said 49 percent of the people here.

You stick the 2 rules as it is a multiple choices poll

i also said something along the lines of "So we only enable what gets the majority?" because i was misunderstanding. i thought he was saying that we only enable what gets the majority of all the votes.

The "No" option is equivalent here in not sticking the rule when you vote. So if the rule doesn't obtain 51% or 66% (depending on the rate we will institute), we don't take it. The rules that obtains the majority will be instituted for the game.
We will need to re-do the poll and explain clearly in the first thread the rule of the poll but I don't think we should complicate it with the "yes" and "no" option.

i think we should. i mean, i'd rather have the majority decide who votes then how many votes out of the entire poll. example:

variable starting point has 44 percent with 8 votes (at time of writing). it wont be enabled because it doesnt have 51 percent of the votes. but what if we had a no option? what if that no option got 7 votes? well, the majority of the people who voted FOR THAT OPTION would be heard, and it would pass. who knows, the people who didnt (in this current poll) vote for it could have been 'abstaining' because they didnt care either way.

but i'm tired of continuing this debate, so i'm willing to accept whatever the people want. but in my opinion, it would be more democratic to have a yes or no option.

[Main_Brain]

It seems ya all are quite big Podpoppers

[Tactical Marine]

I voted fo pods only near crash site, blind reasearch, and steal tech qhn capture base. No real dramtic changes in the game but some that make it a bit more comfortable to play with.

[Method]

No dramatic changes? Blind research is quite dramatic!

[Tactical Marine]

Well okay but still I think it is nessacry and useful.

[Method]

then we wouldn't need a director of science!

[AdamTG02]

Blind research is part of the standard rules. Not a dramatic change because it isn't a change.

[Tactical Marine]

Wait I thought I was voting to turn blind reashearch off... That way we'd be able to pick what techs we want...?

[Method]

Originally posted by Tactical Marine
I voted for...blind reasearch...

nope!

[AdamTG02]

It's confusing. I thought a vote for Blind Research meant to leave that box checked (as it is by default). I can see where you're coming from, though.

I like blind research because it seems more realistic (do nations choose what to discover in real life?) and it adds an element of chance. Also, it seems like Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer would be a lot easier to decide in polls than to list every single potential advance.

YMMV, of course.

[Tactical Marine]

Well whatever, It doesnt really matter to me as I'm not into the whole science thing anyhow. :roll:

[Method]

with blind research on, there would be a lot less chance for people to vote. sure its more realistic, but if we're at war, setting it to conquer might not necessarily get us what we want. say superconductor and superstring theory are available. obviously we want to be able to pick superstring to get chaos, but setting it to conquer might get us superconductor, or even something we don't want at all, like advanced military algorithms!

[Maniac]

I don't agree with the argument that blind research is more realistic. Surely if you invest cash in material science you are more likely to discover Plasma Steel than eg Nonlinear Mathematics. In a history game like civ2 I would agree blind research is more realistic, but SMAC is sci-fi where corporations/ the state know exactly what their research goals are.

[Juliennew]

I will remake the poll with the Yes and No option.
Can someone post the exact vocabulary of the rules in the english version as we will make sure everyone understand for what he votes.

I voted for blind research too but Maniac has a very good point saying it will reduce possibilites of the democratic game and the fun of the game. There will only be a debate on which direction to focus and it isn't interesting at all. And the science advisor would be useless.

[Method]

the rules are:

Higher Goal: Allow transcendance victory
Total War: Allow conquest
Peace in our Time: Allow diplomatic victory
Mine, All Mine: Allow economic victory
Once for all: Allow cooperative victory
Do or Die: Dont restart eliminated players
Look First: Flexible starting locations
Tech Stagnation: Slower research rate
Spoils of War: steal tech when conquer base.
Blind Research: Cannot set precise reseach goals
Intense Rivalry: Oppoents more aggressive
No unity survey: World map not visible
No unity scattering: Unity pods only at landing site
Bell Curve: No random events
Time Warp: accelerated start
Iron Man: Save/restore restricted to exit.
Randomise faction leader personalities
Randomise faction social agendas.

[gopher]

Definitly Blind Research. It will make the voting for new tech SO much more interesting.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by gopher
Definitly Blind Research. It will make the voting for new tech SO much more interesting.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58132

vote in this poll instead!

[Crisler]

Originally posted by Epistax
I agree. A tech for conquering a base?
If we threw a rock at a flying saucer and it crashed, you think we could build more? pft

True we could not build the craft, but we would gain some kind of technology from a study of it's wreckage. That is the theory behind gaining tech when you take a base. A study of their data systems or devices at the base reveal enough information to allow a tech to be discovered quickly.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[DeathByTheSword]

BUt what about the D of science? we do not need him anymore I agree it is cooler to have blind research but for demo game sake we 'need' a D of science