Social Engineering discussion - Page 2

GeneralTacticus · November 3, 2002, 04:37

He's currently developing Doc: Flex.

Archaic · November 4, 2002, 10:28

I know that. But does he have something right *now* we can leach off him?

DeathByTheSword · November 4, 2002, 11:32

no we got everything he has

Archaic · November 5, 2002, 07:57

A pity. =/

AdamTG02 · November 15, 2002, 11:18

The following was my policy on energy rates, from the latest orders thread.

Quote:

Keep 50% / 50% energy rates unless the psych rate must be upped to avert riots, and using a Doctor would produce a deficit of Nutrient or Minerals. (Or, if the DIE won't consent to using a Doctor in the situation.) In that case, go to 40% Econ, then 40% Research, then 30% Econ, and so on, increasing Psych by as many 10% increments as necessary to restore order.

Do citizens support this policy? Does anyone oppose it or want a poll on it? My thought is that, since all of our bases now avert riots without puitting energy into psych, since our two highest-energy bases earn eight energy each, and since it takes a 50% Psych rate to push even those two bases into Golden Age, raising the Psych rate is not worthwhile. I also have not raised the research rate. I would support raising it if our society were more efficient, but at present I believe that funneling funds into research would detract from our budget for SP production. Furthermore, energy saved now may be used to create loans in the future, to the great long-term benefit of our faction.

Another point that might be raised is that I have posted no polls on switching back to Frontier for one turn, when building bases. While I oppose such a measure, Archaic was able to garner significant support behind it in the elections, and this support implies that there may be interest in voting on such a proposal. If there is citizen support for a vote, I will post a vote.

This is mainly to see where people are coming from on these two issues. Any opinions will be appreciated.

Drogue · November 15, 2002, 14:12

I think maybe a 60+% research rate might be good but otherwise right on the money IMHO.

I would be very against going to frontier. Not only does it remove us from our ideals (democracy) the money involved in changing over and back again is to much to make it much benefit, if at all (and I don't think were allowed to change twice in one turn as it seems a little unfair)

GeneralTacticus · November 15, 2002, 20:51

Drogue: I don't know if we'd even get any benefits from doing a 'quickie', as the effects vanish as soon as you switch back. If you do get the free minerals, it's porbably a bug.

Adam: I see no problem with your energy rates policy, and see no reason why it should be polled, but I think it would be a good idea to hold a poll on switching back to Frontier for a turn, to see if the people actually support it.

Drogue · November 16, 2002, 09:54

GT: Exactly what I meant, I think you do keep them, I think it's a bug and I think switching to Frontier for a turn just to get that benefit is slightly immoral, against our ethos and not really much help anyway.

Archaic · November 16, 2002, 11:53

The only benifits of the "quickie" Demo switch are if you're planting bases, in which case they get 10 free mins. Of course, you need to stay out of Demo for a total of 2 upkeeps (Go out the turn before you build, stay out the turn you build, go back the turn after you build) to get it, so unless you're planting bases, it's not worth it. Though, unlike Drogue seems to think here, there's a perfectly good RP reason for it, like I justified in the elections.

Anyway, Adam's right about the Energy Rates.

Method · November 16, 2002, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I think maybe a 60+% research rate might be good but otherwise right on the money IMHO.

i don't think our efficiency is high enough (-1?). we'd actually lose energy i think

Drogue · November 16, 2002, 15:42

GT: maybe, it might be a good idea, it might not, i haven't seen the figures (my SMAC crashed on reinstall, of windows

)

Archaic: Sorry, I wasn't around for the last elections (I only joined 31st Oct) so I have no idea what you said in the last elections. I'd like to hear the RP reason though, I couldn't think of one myself.

GeneralTacticus · November 16, 2002, 18:53

Quote:

GT: maybe, it might be a good idea, it might not, i haven't seen the figures (my SMAC crashed on reinstall, of windows )

It costs either 64 or 32 ECs to switch back and forth, plus any losses due to the efficiency drop.

Drogue · November 16, 2002, 19:09

Sorry, that was meant to be to TKG. My bad

GeneralTacticus · November 16, 2002, 19:12

Oh. What were you referring to?

Drogue · November 16, 2002, 19:17

TKG said: "i don't think our efficiency is high enough (-1?) (to go to a 60% or higher Research rate). we'd actually lose energy i think"

I was meaning I'm not sure whether it's a good idea, because i don't know the figures, but I think it should be an option.

GeneralTacticus · November 16, 2002, 19:18

Ah, I see.

Archaic · November 17, 2002, 07:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Archaic: Sorry, I wasn't around for the last elections (I only joined 31st Oct) so I have no idea what you said in the last elections. I'd like to hear the RP reason though, I couldn't think of one myself.

Simply put, we suspend elections for a short while as the Bureaucracy is reshuffled to accomidate the large numbers of new bases we'd have just planted, so that these citizens of the new base would get fair representation.

And TKG's right, it's not an option. Our efficiency couldn't support it.

Earwicker · November 18, 2002, 11:18

I agree that it's too much trouble in terms of RP and gameplay. We'd have to switch out of planned, too, or else get killed for inefficiency and probably start the new bases with b-drones anyway.

The only point at which it would pay off (mineral-wise) is if we were founding a horde of new bases at once, and even then it would be unsupportable by our ideals.

Drogue · November 18, 2002, 13:33

Well said Earwicker

much better than I put it!