Author Topic: IMPORTANT: VOTE  (Read 1038 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Drgong

  • Moderator
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Thanked: 26 times
IMPORTANT: VOTE
« on: July 23, 2016, 02:11:32 PM »
Okay, as part of the feedback process a request as been made, and both teams feel it worth looking into.


Should Tech Trades be allowed?

1. No more tech trades, starting right now.
2. Only existing tech trade agreements (consisting of 5k RP) should be concluded, then no more tech trades
3. Tech Trades should be allowed.

FSA will not vote. 


If both teams vote 1, then 1 is the winner.
If one team votes 1, and one team votes 2, then 2 is the winner
if one team votes 2, and one votes 3, then 2 is the winner.


I will let the teams decide how they wish to vote. 


You can also add that your vote is only pending the FSA.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2016, 02:15:24 PM by Drgong »
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline AL

  • Captain
  • **********
  • A
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2016, 06:39:24 PM »
I feel like tech trades should be allowed, but not at the frequency that they have been occurring so far. I always thought of a tech trade as a really special event, like something nations would do when desperate and left with no other option. In game however, conducting tech trades is as common an occurrence as someone going to work every day (okay, maybe not that much but you get the idea) which detracts from it being an interesting mechanic. I think if tech trades were somehow limited but still allowed it could work out quite well, so I guess my vote is somewhere between 2 and 3.
 

Offline Panopticon

  • Russia - Astra Imperia
  • Commodore
  • *
  • P
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 12 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2016, 09:12:35 PM »
I have no idea what you mean by frequent tech trades, unless Russia and the FSA are trading everything with each other 'cause we at the NAU aren't seeing too many.

If that is the case then I would vote no more tech trades, since two powers sharing tech will absolutely destroy us.

Otherwise I am for tech trades in general and don't want the option taken away, making them public information might help.

 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2016, 02:35:59 AM »
I've slept on this, and I'm even more convinced tech trades are a bad idea. Not only are they frankly OP, but they also mean that you can't devellop secret techs, or try to outwit your enemy since tech will be traded. We now know that the RUS got lasers for exemple.

That being said, I must say that option 2) is my least favourite. At least option 3) gives us the chance to catch up with our own tech trade, but 2) is basically "We'll stop, but after we grab one more year's worth of research". We might as well give the FSA a list of all jump points. On the other hand, I guess why it would be frustrating if you planned your research on it, and, well, we're the one that blew up our tech trades after Peacekeeper. Couldn't you scale it down maybe?

Also, can I suggest that, if we ban tech trades, we give every faction some more RL to speed things up?
 

Offline Red Dot

  • Commander
  • *********
  • R
  • Posts: 356
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2016, 09:14:36 AM »
Well! With both my teammates voting 1, my dissenting opinion is really meaningless.  Let me tell you anyway why I vote Option 3.

If we disallow tech trades, the interaction between the three factions will be reduced to negligible levels.  There will be no requirement to negotiate with the other teams and the level of interest in the game will decline, at least for me. I can achieve the same by playing solo on my desktop at home. Not wanting to be left behind is what led to my idea of 'selling' our NP Tech.  This led to a very long session in 'Stockholm' where I had to find arguments to cajole the RC in making a trade.  Even if I personally felt frustrated that it failed, it kept me interested and involved for the whole of the session.  Take that away and I'm afraid we will lose more players.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2016, 09:21:34 AM »
I haven't really cast my vote yet.  ::)
 

Offline Red Dot

  • Commander
  • *********
  • R
  • Posts: 356
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2016, 09:22:53 AM »
It seemed to me you were saying Option 1, but you are certainly free to change your mind with my stellar arguments... ;D
« Last Edit: July 24, 2016, 09:32:12 AM by Red Dot »
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2016, 09:31:11 AM »
The issue is, that with only two player factions, I'm not sure what kind of non-hostile interaction we can expect.
 

Offline DaMachinator

  • Drgong - Russian
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2016, 01:02:31 PM »
Indifferent, but I did enjoy reading the RP thread for the Stockholm negotiations. They add flavor to the game for readers, and it appears the players enjoy it as well?
The maximum speed of any ship or missile with a given engine technology is the speed of a ship composed only of one engine of that technology with the highest power to weight ratio possible with current technology, and nothing else.
 

Offline Bughunter

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 595
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2016, 07:23:53 AM »
Trying to choose between 1 and 2 I'm willing to meet my teammate AL at 2.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: IMPORTANT: VOTE
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2016, 08:59:21 AM »
Well, I'm casting my vote for 1, unless someone finds a way to make trade less OP. I'll re-propose just giving every side 15 more RL or so to speed things up if that's an issue too. And hope we at the NAU can catch up at some points.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54