Posts: 298
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2014
ok we got some definition to do, and i guess we should vote for it.
*Stay as we are.
*fix the 4 beakers per city bug and keep playing
*fix the 4 beakers per city and restart restart choosing new civs
*fix the 4 beakers per city and restart restart choosing new civs (setting new bans: example:banning Volanna)
i think that restart with bans is against the idea of testing the new version of erebus, but as others want is ok.
Perhaps other option is to change the 4 beaker per city for 2 or 1 beaker per city is an option, but we need Q to do that fix and i think he is unavailable.
Posts: 298
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2014
ok as we are even, and i voted to keep playing, but i dont care, i can change my vote to Fix 4 beakers per city and go on with the game so we can place the fix and keep playing, and offer whoever wanted to keep as we are, to trade civ with me, i would give Volanna and i would get whatever that guy was using
July 12th, 2014, 20:05
(This post was last modified: July 12th, 2014, 20:06 by Yell0w.)
Posts: 1,202
Threads: 22
Joined: Oct 2011
^^ it would be so fun to pick up volanna and win that way on one hand, on the other hand I wouldn't want to win that way. I don't think thats the best of suggestions, how about we wait for the swing vote.
As I see it there are some problems, first there are players who picked SUM because of 4bpt per city and for them a repick seems fair.
But repicking into a known starting position on this map would kinda destroy the map makers intention, and also everybody would need to repick.
There is no middle ground because we can't alter the mechanic so quickly. There is a "fix" that reduces SUM to +4bpt in the capital, which to me seams weak, but I would go for it, heck I can live with a "handicap". The option of reducing it to something like +2bpt per city isn't available, at least right now.
I would therefore suggest that HK and I swallow it (I voted for repick btw.) and continue with the fix, though I can understand if he doesn't want to play a game he has planed around something that doesn't exist anymore.
"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
- Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Posts: 298
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2014
(July 12th, 2014, 20:05)Yell0w Wrote: I would therefore suggest that HK and I swallow it (I voted for repick btw.) and continue with the fix, though I can understand if he doesn't want to play a game he has planed around something that doesn't exist anymore.
i see 2 votes for:
Stay as we are
and 2 votes for
Fix 4 beakers per city and go on with the game
no vote for repick.
Posts: 2,390
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2011
I've voted to repick. But I don't really think this is the kind of thing that's reasonable to decide by a vote.
It's not surprising to me that (with Kredom's decision shifting) the vote seems to have broken down with players who benefit from the change wanting one thing and players hurt by the change wanting another.
Posts: 2,151
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2014
Voted stay as we are. I'm fine with that.
July 13th, 2014, 13:34
(This post was last modified: July 13th, 2014, 13:36 by Kredom.)
Posts: 298
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2014
ok, lets stay as we are, and keep playing, if summ get too far ahead... lets just hope they kill each other!!!
Posts: 10,039
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
Just to make it clear, my fix would change SUM back to its vanilla state, and I cannot implement it myself currently, nor take the time to work out how to implement it as intended. I feel that SUM as intended was probably slightly overpowered - it is +50% to the starting beakers in a game where the start is largely research constrained. In my opinion the implementation I accidentally set up is ridiculously overpowered. I also was under the impression that those picking had not realized that summoner was altered at all, which is why I set up the fix without feeling the compulsion to compensate or set up a repick. If this is not the case, I apologize for the assumption. I am too tired to care about the result of this currently but I agree that it is not something to decide by poll.
And should it prove necessary, it is very very easy to adjust the quantity of beakers provided per city (the "4" directly correlates to that), but again, I am not able to set that up for you.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
Posts: 2,390
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2011
Before letting the matter drop, I just want to make the case one more time that we should probably restart.
These games last for months, so it's worth taking a few days in the beginning to try to make corrections.
It seems like if we continue, we have two options:
1) Continue without implementing a fix. I agree with Qg that the current version of Summoner is ridiculously overpowered. I don't think the game will be anywhere near fair or balanced, and therefore not very much fun once the fighting starts.
2) Continue with Qg's fix. I feel that this is unfair to Yell0w and myself. The only reason Keelyn was even on my list is because, upon learning about Qg's changes, I felt that a non-Summoner leader would not be viable in a competitive game. I think that without a boost to Summoner she's pretty underpowered, especially if she's going to be competing against Volanna and Varn Gosam.
While restarting is not ideal, I think it's better than either of these options. I propose that we restart either with Qg's fix or simply by banning all the Summoner leaders. We could do this one of two ways: either we could all repick (to be fair, since we've all seen the map now), or Lord Parkin could simply give Yell0w and myself whatever was next on our list after the Summoner leaders (that way, everyone would have made their picks without map knowledge).
Anyway, I'll go with whatever the consensus is, but I thought I should chime one last time.
Posts: 2,390
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2011
I will also point out that I find it confusing that there are six votes but only five players in this game  .
|
