#1 20.01.2012 20:32:52

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

It's time to wrap up the discussion here and here.

This setting is for LT30 but will be inherited by LT31, until another poll changes it to a new value.

Offline

#2 22.01.2012 16:56:03

Duncan_Shriek
Player
Posts: 19

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Voted against; I can't see any reason why this needs to be decided beforehand. _If_ an alliance of more than 14 decides to eliminate the rest, they will be rightfully left in the position to decide how to continue. If nobody is wanting another war, the game is at it's end and nobody can do anything against that.

I don't take the ranking too serious. It's a tool to inform newcomers of the experience and determination of their fellow gamers. For taking the ranking as expression of some sort of achievement, the game is inherently much too unfair.

That said, I personally would be surprised if we had such large alliances. They are hard to manage...

Offline

#3 22.01.2012 18:13:21

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Agreed with Duncan

Offline

#4 22.01.2012 23:46:32

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

I think 14 is still too many, but I'm voting for, because it's better than no limit.

Offline

#5 23.01.2012 10:25:05

seyit
Player
Posts: 12

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

I vote for, I guess

Offline

#6 23.01.2012 14:26:00

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Duncan_Shriek wrote:

Voted against; I can't see any reason why this needs to be decided beforehand. _If_ an alliance of more than 14 decides to eliminate the rest, they will be rightfully left in the position to decide how to continue. If nobody is wanting another war, the game is at it's end and nobody can do anything against that.

I don't take the ranking too serious. It's a tool to inform newcomers of the experience and determination of their fellow gamers. For taking the ranking as expression of some sort of achievement, the game is inherently much too unfair.

This poll is about the quality of the game, the ranking already has its own system to deal with huge alliances claiming victory. The goal with this poll is to prevent a gangbang from spoiling the fun and ending the game prematurely.

When a few players defeat hordes of enemies most people respect their victory and feel that the game reached a satisfying conclusion, whether they themselves were crushed or not.

Players who prefer a peaceful / UN-style game also have good reasons to vote for this poll: it makes it possible to end the game in a satisfactory way compatible with their gamestyle. Whenever 75% of the players agree to an endturn the top 14 players in score points at the endturn will win and the game is over. If we don't set a limit beforehand we would get an awkward situation when we approach the endturn: the #1 in scores has an interest to vote for only 1 winner, the #10 in scores wants 10 winners etc. (or players could together decide to let everyone win, but I think many players would find that a lame anticlimax).

I agree that 14 is a large number, personally I prefer a smaller number but I thought that may get less support. But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.

Offline

#7 23.01.2012 15:01:42

Kryon
Player
Posts: 339

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Marduk wrote:

But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.

It is not the 1st time. An alliance limit and endturn was voted for in LT28. See http://old.longturn.org/lt28-limit-number-winners-0 and http://old.longturn.org/lt-28-end-year

The best would be to have a multiple choice vote like we did for LT28 but currently only yes/no votes are possible. If someone wants a lower limit, he/she can open another vote to overwrite this one.

Last edited by Kryon (23.01.2012 18:18:42)

Offline

#8 23.01.2012 21:25:13

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Kryon wrote:
Marduk wrote:

But this is the first time we use this rule, we can try how it works out (if the poll is accepted) and then vote for a new value at LT31.

It is not the 1st time. An alliance limit and endturn was voted for in LT28. See http://old.longturn.org/lt28-limit-number-winners-0 and http://old.longturn.org/lt-28-end-year

The best would be to have a multiple choice vote like we did for LT28 but currently only yes/no votes are possible. If someone wants a lower limit, he/she can open another vote to overwrite this one.

Hah I totally forgot about LT28! Funny that the poll ended up with the same proposed value as the one selected in the LT28 poll.

@multiple choice:

Multiple choice polls definitally have their usefulness, but limiting polls to yes/no forces players to ask very clear and unambiguous poll questions. Compare it with a parliament: first there's an open discussion about possible alternatives, and the initial idea can be amended. When the initiator of the idea thinks he knows which alternative would get most support, he puts it to a yes/no vote. If he doesn't get it right, anyone else can propose an amended poll and put it to the vote.

But it would be good to have a discussion on the forum about whether or not to bring back multiple choice polls. Also it depends on Dude, for him yes/no polls make his work easier since it makes it very clear what people want and how the ruleset should be changed (e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).

Offline

#9 23.01.2012 23:33:32

Kryon
Player
Posts: 339

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Marduk wrote:

(e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).

When I say multiple choice votes, I meant the "instant runoff" voting method maho used at the old website. This method allows multiple voting steps to be completed instantly. I really like it as the situation you described can not happen with this method. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting for more info.

Last edited by Kryon (23.01.2012 23:34:56)

Offline

#10 26.01.2012 13:47:44

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? smile Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.

Offline

#11 27.01.2012 23:17:29

det0r
Player
Posts: 166

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Steelski wrote:

I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? smile Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.

This is exactly the reason that I am against such large alliances. But a limit of 14 is better than no limit.

Offline

#12 28.01.2012 16:05:29

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Kryon wrote:
Marduk wrote:

(e.g. if you have a poll with 10 options and each receives 10% support; if a very extreme option receives 10%+1 vote then it's possible that a majority of the players would be very unhappy about this outcome).

When I say multiple choice votes, I meant the "instant runoff" voting method maho used at the old website. This method allows multiple voting steps to be completed instantly. I really like it as the situation you described can not happen with this method. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting for more info.

Yea that worked quite well. If Akfaew agrees we can bring this back.

Offline

#13 28.01.2012 16:18:51

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

det0r wrote:
Steelski wrote:

I have a feeling some of us are going to find out soon how much it sucks when your alliance of 7 nations gets rolled over easily -- no matter how good you are or what you do -- by an alliance of 14 nations. Double research and double production = 4 times the ownage? smile Some players might not be able to form or join in an alliance of 14 due to their starting location for example.

This is exactly the reason that I am against such large alliances. But a limit of 14 is better than no limit.

I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".

Offline

#14 30.01.2012 23:17:43

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Marduk wrote:

I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".

I made one with 10. I hope it's ok (for akfaew too).

Offline

#15 31.01.2012 21:40:07

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Poll: LT30_Limited_number_of_winners

Steelski wrote:
Marduk wrote:

I guess it would be ok to have one more poll, though we should finish the polling phase after that. E.g. if you propose a limit of 8 players then "yes=set to 8 players" and "no=keep at 14 players".

I made one with 10. I hope it's ok (for akfaew too).

Cool, so let's keep this as the final poll about the player limit for LT30.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB