Print

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

[Chiefwaffles]

We really don't need to make the voting system that much more complex. I'm going to "fix" it without the priority stuff in this post. Since if everyone doesn't follow along it quickly devolves into a mess. You also should have set Ebbor's and my votes for the AS-HA1 to the highest priority.
Also, for Skirmish: I still say Revealing Mist or Flare. I really like Flare, actually. It's simple (Fireball: Swap power for range + colors + brightness) and helps us in many ways. But I'm leaving my argument for that after the revision phase and after we see how badly messed up our design inevitably will be.


Artillery is just simply the best bet right now. Disregarding range and even regarding Lucky Strike, our artillery is superior to theirs. If we were to spend a design on improving it we would be far ahead in the artillery game. I'm fairly convinced that while they've been able to keep up to us so far, but...
1.) Our artillery power has been in a way "saved up". The HC1-E has had a lot of improvements but it's still Very Expensive, so they haven't bothered countering it. Upgrading its range will suddenly beat all their artillery with one move. They'd have to upgrade a lot of things to beat the HA1. If it's successful, but let's not kid ourselves here.
2.) They're probably reaching the limits of their Ballistae. Chances are that we've put way more effort into the HC series, and while up to this point we've been on-and-off equal in the artillery game, there should be a point when it becomes way harder for them to upgrade than it will to us. Even with magic, there's only so much you can do to make a ballista bolt fly further.


Getting a Regular/Expensive HA1 will be amazing for us - we may actually start pushing back on the seas, first off. We've gone from disasterously losing every sea engagement to a stalemate. Upgrading artillery puts it on every boat, not just Fog-O-Wars. (Though I'm pretty sure the HC1-E is only fitted to Fog-O-Wars; our longboats get HC1's). So if we get the HA1 to be Regular/Expensive, every boat will get it, drastically improving our performance at sea and giving us the upper hand. If we begin winning at sea, we can then use our advantage in artillery to support our troops on land. I'm nearly positive that a successful artillery design will spell victory on the sea and force their attention there while we can do strictly land-based things.
Then, it'll also greatly help us at land. The plains we should be able to keep a stalemate instead of losing ground. Jungle... I dunno. It depends on how much new artillery matters there and what they do as their actions.

But then there's the revision. The flare I'm now confident will work as a revision. If we get a working HA1 and a flare, imagine what we can do. We'll have super extreme range! Our soldiers will be better at skirmishes thanks to communication and control over lighting! Even if we have to use our revision fixing the HA1, super extreme range will still help. Just not as much.



I didn't change anything other than the priority here. If you want to use the priority version that RAM used, just fix the votes for the Onslaught to use the same priority system that he used for his votes, and quote his votebox instead of mine.

Designs
2 AS-HA1 "Onslaught": Chiefwaffles, 10ebbor10 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447733#msg7447733
1 Shrouder Shell: FallacyofUrist http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447735#msg7447735
1 Flameshrieker Shells: Lightforger http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447746#msg7447746
0 Deadly Spiders:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447753#msg7447753
0 Anti-magic mosquitos:
1 Spell-forged Steamworks: RAM http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
1 Anti-luck charm: RAM http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
1 Pillar of unmagic: RAM http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
0 Crystal Pyramid Bunker:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447865#msg7447865
0 Fire Ball Staff:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447865#msg7447865

Revisions
0 Revealing Mist:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447772#msg7447772
0 Flare:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447772#msg7447772

Orders

EDIT: Oh yeah, also.
Future Design: Tower of Growth
When one apprentice stated "What if we just made a really tall tower then used dogwood wands from there?", our Project Lead was struck with brilliance. Sure, the apprentice may have been joking, but regardless! Our losses in the jungle can be attributed towards the fact that there actually wasn't any jungle, and the cold.
The cold is something that can be addressed later. The growth, however, is not.

First, what if we could apply jungle-like growths in all the battlefields? The plains would become heavy with overgrowth that changes every night but our soldiers always know the way through. The jungle would be restored, as would our fighting chances there. The Tower of Growth aims to implement this.
The concept for the Tower of Growth was called "a giant tree?" by another unnamed apprentice, who was later severely punished for questioning the Project Lead. Numerous mages assemble at the construction site as a giant dogwood core is grown over the course of anywhere from a few hours to several days (Our mathemagicians really don't know yet without funding approval) then a quick protective shell of stone or metal is built around it, making it appear like a tower. This dogwood core is almost like an amplifying device, allowing the mages operating the tower to have an extreme area of influence and general growth powers. The operating mages then will focus on different battlefields to radically change the terrain via the appearance of thick flora appearing practically overnight. Of course, an entire jungle can't be made in a night, but in several months it can. And the layout of that new jungle can easily be changed overnight via minor tweaks to the shapes and layouts along with a few additions here and there.
Not only does this destroy the Moskurgian advantage in every battlefield, but it gives us one we haven't seen before: Ultimate knowledge of the battlefield. We're the ones creating the battlefield. We know how to traverse it.



EDIT2:
Revision: SO1-AD 'Concussion'
Named for the effect it seems to give to those filthy Moskurgians.
(Anti-divination)
The SO1-AD is a modification of the SO1-AM Equalizer. Instead of using the extremely expensive charms, this uses the same kind of crystal used in anti-magic bombs and is hence much cheaper. This was tried in the design process for the Equalizer, but the design summary notes that there were issues with the cannon's spell setting off the unstable crystal used within.
The solution? Set the crystal to be used for one "magical wavelength", in a way. The Concussion's crystal interior, instead of absorbing magic and exploding, will reflect magic of the divination variety (thanks to precise mathemagics!) away. This causes immense pain in any divination casters nearby and disrupts divination magic in general. Unfortunately, the shell still won't explode in the sky. But it will "bury" itself into the ground thanks to its weight instead.

TL;DR: A repeat of our anti-divination designs. This is possible as a revision because it's just "Equalizer, but use antimagic-bomb-like crystal tuned to divination waves instead". The Equalizer was doing a ton of different things that didn't work in a revision, but this one does.

Revision: SO2-AM "Grounder"
1.) Use anti-magic bomb crystal instead of anti-magic charm gems  -> Much cheaper; no longer National Effort.
2.) Utilize our circuits to "stabilize" the shell; the circuits are broken during firing but last long enough to prevent explosion in the barrel -> We can use anti-magic bomb crystal without it exploding in the barrel.

TL;DR: Bam. Cheaper because it's using crystal instead of charms. And because of our circuits, the crystal doesn't explode like it did in the design summary for the finished Equalizer and it will instead perform like it was supposed to - exploding into anti-magic shrapnel. All done in a very simple revision utilizing knowledge that we already have.
More detailed write-out for this one to come in Revision Phase.

[Roboson]

You can't single handedly change the voting system otherwise it would look like this:

Designs!
10000000 "What RAM Says": RAM http://www.I'mpresidentofArstozkabowbeforemeIruleinyourfacemajorityrulesthisisadictatorshiprulesdontmatteranarchyanarchyanarchy.msg7447761#msg7447761
Negative Infinity "What everyone else says: Roboson http://www.itdoesn'treallymatteratallwhatthosepeasantsthink.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
1 Reason: Roboson http://www.thisisreallyajoke/butseriously/justvoteforyourownstuff/thesystemisn'tbroken.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761

[Chiefwaffles]

Hold on.
Wait a second.

We've been trying to think of all these ways to shield our troops from enemy fire when we already have a spell for that. Firewall. Its disadvantage is cost + casting time. With all that we know about fire by now, we could get really good benefits on a revision to firewall to fix both of those things. A quick + cheap/Expensive Firewall means our troops have much better protection against enemy fire_heh, no?

[RAM]

And yet people have been changing the voting system frequently, and arbitrarily, as demonstrated by not one but two people changing my votes when they have no grounding by which to do so. When has anyons supported voting for multiple proposals. Like, once? As an off-hand counter-argument of what they would like but aren't going to try to justify?
I am going to go back over the first, ehh, hundred posts and see if anyone voted twice...
And I do not find anything, but I could have missed something. But it seems pretty clear that the intention was to find the one thing that each person was voting for. The whole "you can vote for multiple things" is completely fabricated at people's whims. My voting system is no different in that regard. So no, you are not entitled to arbitrarily change my votes. You may make an appeal for it to be different, but just changing other people's votes is completely unconscionable. For the most pressing issue, you claim that Iam voting equally for all three proposals, which clearly I am not. If you can't edit my votes accurately into your scheme then don't pretend that you can accurately predict what they would be if I were voting according to your own whimsy.

You can't single handedly change the voting system otherwise it would look like this:

Designs!
10000000 "What RAM Says": RAM http://www.I'mpresidentofArstozkabowbeforemeIruleinyourfacemajorityrulesthisisadictatorshiprulesdontmatteranarchyanarchyanarchy.msg7447761#msg7447761
Negative Infinity "What everyone else says: Roboson http://www.itdoesn'treallymatteratallwhatthosepeasantsthink.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
1 Reason: Roboson http://www.thisisreallyajoke/butseriously/justvoteforyourownstuff/thesystemisn'tbroken.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761

That is exactly what people have been doing by voting for more than one proposal at a time. It was done arbitrarily with no notable discussion. If we are going to say that no, in fact you can only vote for one thing, then fine. Ifyou can point out that it has always been that way, then I will concede that nothing has changed and we should default to tradition. If you can demonstrate the discussion in which such a scheme gained a general consensus, then I will concede that it is the will of the collective and adopt the new system. But citing me being a problem by changing my voting rules when such activity has occured, and clearly will continue to do so regardless of my own actions, is rather obviously inaccurate. But thankyou for pointing out why this sort of behaviour is a problem, I hope that we can come to some sort of agreement about either returning to the original system or adopting something better, but only with a consensus, and definitely not ever editing someone else's contribution to the voting tally to suit your personal whimsy.

Designs!
2.75 AS-HA1 "Onslaught": Chiefwaffles, 10ebbor10 RAM.75 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447733#msg7447733
1 Shrouder Shell: FallacyofUrist http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447735#msg7447735
1 Flameshrieker Shells: Lightforger http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447746#msg7447746
0 Deadly Spiders:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447753#msg7447753
0 Anti-magic mosquitos:
1 Spell-forged Steamworks: RAM http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
0 antiluck charm: RAM http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
.5 Pillar of unmagic: RAM.5 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447761#msg7447761
0 Crystal Pyramid Bunker:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447865#msg7447865
0 Fire Ball Staff:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447865#msg7447865

Revisions!
0 Revealing Mist:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447772#msg7447772
0 Flare:  http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=163277.msg7447772#msg7447772

Orders!

[10ebbor10]

The whole "you can vote for multiple things" is completely fabricated at people's whims

It wasn't. It was part of the game from the beginning, and of the game before that, and of the game before that.

My voting system is no different in that regard

It is different in the notion that you are the only one using your voting system, whereas everyone uses the other system. You do not get to arbitrarily decide rules. Last time you brought up your proposal, everyone rejected it. This time, it's no different.


Oh, and there was an agreement to limit proposals to 2 votes to avoid cluttering up everything.

[andrea]

The whole "you can vote for multiple things" is completely fabricated at people's whims

It wasn't. It was part of the game from the beginning, and of the game before that, and of the game before that.

I don't remember that, actually.

[Roboson]

One, vote or multiple votes, it doesn't matter. What matters is agreement on the system. Otherwise, its anarchy. And since its anarchy,  my vote is worth more than everyone else's combined so, we're getting spiders. 

The whole "you can vote for multiple things" is completely fabricated at people's whims

It wasn't. It was part of the game from the beginning, and of the game before that, and of the game before that.

I don't remember that, actually.

Yeah if I recall correctly, for the longest time it was 1 vote per person. Plus order votes and all that.

[Chiefwaffles]

First, a general pre-emotive request to keep it civil please.

But I prefer "you can vote for as many things as you want." I do it because even if it seems like the other way around sometimes, I don't want to micromanage my posts in this thread. I want to be able to support what proposals I like. And if you only want one idea to win, just vote for that one idea. I don't see the problem in this approach.

A ranked voting method would work if we weren't using copy+pasted text in a quote in forum posts, but we are.

[10ebbor10]

There never was a restriction against multiple votes. Hell, for the longest time there was no formal vote system at all.

Multi-votes were rare (and the DF search is garbage, so I can't find them), but they were sllowed to happen.

More importantly, multi-votes do not disrupt the system, unlike RAM's " I'm more important than everyone else"  approach.

 

[Chiefwaffles]

To be fair, I'm almost certain RAM was just using himself as an example and meant for everyone to do the same. He just forgot to also do the same to existing votes. 

[10ebbor10]

If he planned to do that, he could have done it more simply by giving himself a 1 point, 0.75 point, and 0.5 point vote.

The approach of using 4/3/2 forces everyone rlse to follow.

[10ebbor10]

On a side note, Moskurg's anti-frost tower system relies on using hot air from the desert. They donlt have the magecraft to heat air, but need to steal it from eksewhere.

That means that if we attack the desert with Frost towers, and turn it freezing like the Jungle, their spell will fail and their forces will freeze again.

[Chiefwaffles]

@Ebbor's first post: True.

Anywhoo, miscellaneous design idea for some virtually impossible time when we don't desperately need to counter an OP enemy design or counter their counter for our OP design. AkA never.
Design: Spell of Restoration
We've done life. We've done plant growth. Let's combine the two to make a spell to restore wounds on our soldiers. Useful for literally every scenario as battles tend to produce wounds and hearing wounds is good.


And @Ebbor's new post: Yup. So it seems like a continental frost tower would be even more useful now? Though I forget what page my design for one is on.

[10ebbor10]

GM

Tower of Forever Frost:  An astoundingly expensive tower that has to be assembled in place and requires the skill of a master wizard to operate, as well as countless other skilled wizards.  Creates a very powerful cold evocation and then channels it directly into the air, consistently lowering temperatures within a radius of about fifty miles.  Can induce snow in the jungle during the winter, freezing rain in the summer.  A National Effort.

Obsolete description.

There may be others, haven't checked them all.

[RAM]

Oh, and there was an agreement to limit proposals to 2 votes to avoid cluttering up everything./b]

Could you please cite a moment at which that was decided? I recall that about three people liked the idea, a couple didn't, and the majority just didn't care enough to say anything, probably sort of feeling that maybe it would be nice to have a bit less clutter but it didn't seem worth making rules over... Then later-on someone changed their mind and pretty much just dropped it with nobody much caring, because the voting rules around here pretty much never existed except when someone arbitrarily changes the voting tally because a couple of people said something positive about their idea for a restriction.

First, a general pre-emotive request to keep it civil please.

But I prefer "you can vote for as many things as you want." I do it because even if it seems like the other way around sometimes, I don't want to micromanage my posts in this thread. I want to be able to support what proposals I like. And if you only want one idea to win, just vote for that one idea. I don't see the problem in this approach.

A ranked voting method would work if we weren't using copy+pasted text in a quote in forum posts, but we are.

Thankyou, I appreciate it and am making an effort to keep everything on the topic rather than making accusations or value judgments.

I worr that that will cause ties. If everyone votes more than once, and there are two or three "that sounds like it will help" proposals, then it stands to reason that everyone will vote for all of them and there will be no final decision. I agree that it is constricting but do not see a preferable alternative, outside of weighted voting which lets people vote for multiple things but still forces variations between them.

I do not see the issue with copy/pasting. Is it a matter of conformity? Or is it difficult to trak numerous votes with different numbers attached to them? Or perhaps it is too much addition for somethign that is just a hobby project and should be relaxing? I can think of multiple possibilities but none ofthem seems all that difficult to me.

To be fair, I'm almost certain RAM was just using himself as an example and meant for everyone to do the same. He just forgot to also do the same to existing votes. 

I would indeed like for everyone else to do the same, and am using myself as an example. But I am more using myself as an example of how off the voting has become, and how it could be better, and just how strongly people who advocate freedom in voting feel about other people voting wrong. I accept that my votes may well be discredited entirely when the proposal appears or that the G.M. might declare that that clearly isn't the way voting works and could I please change it and never do anything like that again. I would genuinely like to see my method adopted butdo not think it will happen, because noting and adding 4s,3s, and 2s together is too complex and counting names is not.

So it is, perhaps, not completely honest to say that I mean for everyone else to follow suit, because I do not expect such, but I would welcome the change if it happened.

1 point, 0.75 point, and 0.5 point vote.

I honestly dod not think of that. I worry, however, about the addition of fractions, it is a bit more awkward thant integers, but if we can agree to people who wish to vote for multiple proposals using such a scheme than it might be a good outcome. It would typically come down to a matter of total voters anyway in most scenarioes so the added addition probably owuldn't be that big iof a problem.

Does anyone like that idea?

I am going to go back and edit in the fractional approach, I am not adding spell of restoration because it explicitly states that it is for another time, but it is bolded so...?