Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brood]

We did not rig the system, we voted for proposals that we liked including each others and a lot of other players, in what way does us choosing to vote for something rig the system?

[Alexandria]

Sheesh voting for ideas I like makes me a rigger now?
I could be wrong but feelings of persecution are quite common amongst people who are being accused of things based solely upon what somebody thinks with no evidence of any kind.
If the ideas of Brood or Mesor do not seem good to me then I will not vote for them, why should the fact that I have chosen to vote for them so far mean that I'm rigging the system?


Should I make up a list of players who've voted for the same person every turn? Because it'll be a long list from long before I joint the game.

[Nadaka]

Sheesh voting for ideas I like makes me a rigger now?
I could be wrong but feelings of persecution are quite common amongst people who are being accused of things based solely upon what somebody thinks with no evidence of any kind.


Should I make up a list of players who've voted for the same person every turn? Because it'll be a long list from long before I joint the game.

feel free to compile a list of all proposals and sub proposals grouped by original author and compile a list of all votes for each of those. be sure to vet for similar proposals, proposals that are resubmitted slightly differently, votes that change, proposals and votes inirregular formats but not discussion in proposal format,,etc. you can present a report next week after you understand what i mean when i say "effort".

being defensive or offended is not productive. i have been extremely objective, not one bit of this is personally motivated on my side.

[3_14159]

Could we please try to let this game not descend into bickery and try to remain constructive?

@mesor: You claim that the game descends due to "UR has stopped being the one who gets the majority of the support in the game and so has complained about it". Can you show me this is true?
@Alexandria: Since Nadaka has told us you'd three have voted for the same players every turn, would you tell us who'd done the same in that list?

@Everyone: Can we try to not get this game killed? We need a voting system to reach the following points:
a) The GM does not have that much work
b) Possible voting alliances are no longer possible.

Would a limit on votes reach those goals? For example, everyone may do two proposals and has two votes?

[Alexandria]

I know what you meant by effort, my point was that we are not rigging the game, we are just voting for ideas that we like and being offended tends to happen when you join a game just to be have what amounts to an insult thrown in your face because you voted for ideas you like.

UR gets less support now and since then he began complaining that Mesors, Brood and Me are voting for each other, the complaints are in this thread. Our voting for each others ideas does not mean that we are cheating.

A vote limit probably would, it would also seriously limit any work we can get done in a turn since we'd have maybe 3-4 proposals at max pass and people would constantly change votes as well rather then sticking with what they picked originally.

[Funk]

man the bitching and bickery in this is amazing.
im fine with two vote and proposals.

[10ebbor10]

Would a limit on votes reach those goals? For example, everyone may do two proposals and has two votes?

That is a very narrow limit, and in fact, would promote voting alliances more than anything else. But yeah, vote limiting might be the solution. It's also fairly hard for the GM to balance, as the amount of approved stuff will fluctuate strongly based on player count, and vote distribution.

How about: 6 design votes, 4 production votes and 2 research votes. Interesting is that a proposal assumes you voting for it, and uses a vote. This therefore limits subproposal sprawl, production sprawl, and other stuff.

Only problem is that it might encourage suggestion packing. (Ie, smashing things together that don't need to be smashed together)

Another option might be to work with slots. This allows the GM to clearly expect how much things are voted for. Examples of slots would be:
3 large projects
4 medium projects
5 small projects.
2 tech projects
The large projects would be run till completion, the medium ones get a fair share of engineers, and the small serve for niche stuff that is developped over multiple years. Then only the things voted for most count, in descending order.

The last option would be to simply increase the amounts of votes required to get a project approved.

Personally, I like 2 the best since it allows the GM maximum control, and leaves space for smaller projects as well. It would probably incorporate elements from 1 and 3. (Ie, large project requires at least X votes, votes are limited, but not too much.)

[3_14159]

Hm... how about adopting the limited vote system with separate proposal and voting phases? That way all the votes would be concentrated in one phase and wouldn't/couldn't be changed any more. However, it would slow the whole game somewhat, as anything less than a day for both would be unfair.

@10ebbor: Those two are another possibility.

@Alexandria: Care to collect the voting data? I'd be really interested in training my data mining skills a bit further, but collecting all those votes is a bit too much effort for my taste.

[Alexandria]

Yeah 60 pages of arguing is a bit much to dig through, especially with a lot of votes getting changed multiple times as well.

[Taricus]

Huh, probably got changed or something. At any rate, feel free to ignore the 5.1 vote. Since it got changed down the line somewhere :/

[RAM]

....Ram are you even TRYING for serious proposals anymore?

Nope.

Lies and slander! RAM has complete confidence in the viability of the proposals it makes!

...

...

RAM suspects that the idea of limiting the number of proposals to a set number based upon the G.M.'s whims and that the most popular votes are chosen and ties are resolved using an effectively random system. It would limit the number of accepted proposals and ignore variations in total player numbers.

There do exist variations between the votes of Brood, Mesor, and Alexandria, but they pretty much always vote for the proposals that were submitted by their group. Now this could have various causes, from single players with multiple forum accounts, to people voting with others explicitly so that those others will vote for them, to a collaborative effort to submit only proposals that the entire collaborative agrees with and prevent redundant proposals, to just an unrelated community with very similar tastes. Regardless of cause it 'looks' like collusion and will breed a certain level of discontent, which seems to be a running theme of this game and probably can't be avoided. What will likely happen is that folk will just adapt their voting away from proposals that they only moderately like and are getting many votes so that their favourite proposals have a better chance of winning...

[Ukrainian Ranger]

UR gets less support now and since then he began complaining that Mesors, Brood and Me are voting for each other, the complaints are in this thread. Our voting for each others ideas does not mean that we are cheating.

I am popular, heh. While I suspected cheating  (new user is suspicious thing, can you agree?) Now I am reasonably sure that this is not the case (on other hand it's Internet, you can be the very same person)

Severe metagaming is the case here. Quite unpleasant thing in every game ( especially ones that made not for winning) but usually not cheating

It's like... hmmm...  game of Mafia where votes are based not on like\dislike mechanics  not on game situation

Your assumption that I am overfocused on getting my proposals voted is definitely  based on the fact that you see the main goal of the game to get your own proposals voted one way or another and project that belief on me.
Whatever you think my fun in the game is not to get the feeling = "yay my proposal is voted, I won!" but " Fun update to read", " "interesting weapon we got here" , "I enjoyed discussing projects between updates" 

What ruins my fun?
1) Real world copying, to the point of importing exact stats and engineering solutions.
2) People who see any non-supportive comment to their proposal as a personal insult
3) Popularity contests

[adwarf]

Severe metagaming is the case here. Quite unpleasant thing in every game ( especially ones that made not for winning) but usually not cheating

What ruins my fun?
1) Real world copying, to the point of importing exact stats and engineering solutions.
2) People who see any non-supportive comment to their proposal as a personal insult
3) Popularity contests

Severe metagaming doesn't exist in a suggestion game (especially this one) since most suggestion games are about metagaming, you're trying to make your side or whoever your suggesting actions for 'win' because its both fun and achieving something. The best way to do that  is to talk to (via thread, PM, irc, etc.) other players and devise plans. Thus a suggestion game can't actually have metagaming, it might have people exploiting the system but not metagaming.

As for real world copying, thats going to happen because this game is closely tied to real life, and using real life examples of weapons and ideas is going to happen because they are proven to work.

To number two I say you're just as guilty, perhaps worse actually, as anyone else here, especially when things aren't going exactly a specific way and you resort to insulting people. There is no reason to insult people, or start arguments based on them as you're simply wasting time, ours and yours. While I understand that you're point is good, take into account everyone (even yourself) is prone to that from time to time.

And finally to number three, this isn't a popularity contest its simply that in some cases people feel you've gotten far to many votes. For example you're idea to attack our neighbor who was neutral at the time, was a terrible idea, but you still got a ton of support for it even if it ended up being a modified version of it. That is not a popularity contest its also another part of suggestion games like this.

------------------------

In regards on how to reduce work load I support increasing the number of votes required to get a project pushed through, and it'd also be a good idea to cut out projects that either seem to closely related to another, not fitting the time period and technology, etc. All this decided at the GM's discretion of course.

[Taricus]

Oh man, that was a good turn. Though I should've passed too due to the votes...

[3_14159]

I'd like to propose a shockingly modern idea:

Designate this as a cut-off point.

Basically, why not try to ignore everything that has happened until today and try to continue with the game in a calm, constructive manner?
I'd therefore advise everyone to follow some basic guidelines which will hopefully improve the thread:
a) Civil Do not call each other names, do not be simply unconstructive because the other did one or two or a hundred proposals you don't like.
b) Cooperation We're working together. Try not to look at 'my proposal' or not.
c) Clarify Noone can read your mind. If you vote against or for something, why not add your reasons for that? And, if you are against it, why not post the reasons in the OOC thread? Ideally, in a form of fact, fact,  fact, conclusion.
d) Positive If you disagree with someone on something, why not cite the fact you disagree with and offer an explanation against it.

Here you'll find a now useless partway done analysis on last turn. I'll use it as grounds for the next year's analysis which I'll begin now. Anyone able and willing to weigh in may find me in the bay12games IRC channel to hopefully catch my mistakes before I post it here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To start with that, and to hopefully get the discussion back to the game itself, I'd like to offer an analysis about our current state of business (conclusions are marked like this.):
Army:
We have a good assortment of tanks, with our new heavy tank getting produced now, too. With 32 K-1 per year they will remain scarce, however. Switching production from the BattleBus might help here.
Our infantry is still armed with mosin nagants, and we have about ten infantry units per MG. Switching them to the SVA-10 might help here, and I'd really like to see a smaller MG to be introduced for squad level. May be too modern, though.
Our mobility, however, is severely lacking due to the lack of transport. We have enough halftracks to transport less than 3000 of our men. Also, we have less Crickets than artillery, which therefore won't be able to be transported quickly. Producing more crickets would be advised, definitely to one per artillery basis and hopefully to transport about ten thousand men. That would require about 2000, and currently about seven years.
Speaking of artillery: We currently have 80mm and 40mm towed artillery guns. I think we should modernize them, and possibly add self-propelled artillery into the mix.

Comparing ourselves to Morovia, "Their new Tank Destroyer is in the same class as our K-1". We will possibly have real enemy with that, and they may be able to overwhelm our limited numbers of K-1s. Flanking them with sufficient Badgers and/or air strikes would help there, probably.

Comparing ourselves to Capia, their tank shares common characteristics with the Morovian and therefore, the K-1 though slower. Again, maneuver warfare and air support will be necessary. Additionally, they have about 2/3rds of our infantry, supported extensively by artillery. Since they probably will be dug in at the border, I'd advise that we try to break through decisively to make redeployments necessary. Again, air support, too.

Navy:

Air Force:

Oh man, that was a good turn. Though I should've passed too due to the votes...

Yeah, very interesting turn. Seems like war's brewing...

Addition: I can already say that I intend to design a ground attack/close air support plane.