Hi, I'd like to bring up the issue of the exploit discovered by the Mad Scientists related to events in this game. Daveshack has asked for a team vote and AFAIK we haven't discussed this at all. Basically the issue is that a team can "cancel" any event they get by ctl-alt-del or similar methods. What has been proposed, since the opinion of some teams is that nothing can be enforced otherwise, are the following:
1) Teams must take their events and the turnplayer handles them (not popular among anyone from discussion, because it is felt that "cheating" will still happen)
2) Teams only take positive events and cancel negative ones (Saturn recently endorsed this).
3) All events must be canceled; no events will be acted on (I personally favor this, again I have no clue what the rest of the team thinks).
So it looks like other teams are voting to only allow positive events, but discussion died down a while ago and there was no conclusion. I am very strongly against (2) because I feel events are imbalanced in the first place, and this solution does nothing for events one team gets that harm the other team. As I was mentioning to Lord Parkin, a vote for "Events" as the teams originally had is not the same as "only positive events" in my eyes at least. Losing the element of risk and still not knowing what all events can be canceled (like partisans for razing cities, uprisings, "wounded soldier peace"...) makes this solution seem rather poor to me. It's at least as any to enforce no events, period, too.
But it would be nice if the team had more input on this, at the very least we should respectfully put forward a vote like the other teams so the issue can be resolved.
1) Teams must take their events and the turnplayer handles them (not popular among anyone from discussion, because it is felt that "cheating" will still happen)
2) Teams only take positive events and cancel negative ones (Saturn recently endorsed this).
3) All events must be canceled; no events will be acted on (I personally favor this, again I have no clue what the rest of the team thinks).
So it looks like other teams are voting to only allow positive events, but discussion died down a while ago and there was no conclusion. I am very strongly against (2) because I feel events are imbalanced in the first place, and this solution does nothing for events one team gets that harm the other team. As I was mentioning to Lord Parkin, a vote for "Events" as the teams originally had is not the same as "only positive events" in my eyes at least. Losing the element of risk and still not knowing what all events can be canceled (like partisans for razing cities, uprisings, "wounded soldier peace"...) makes this solution seem rather poor to me. It's at least as any to enforce no events, period, too.
But it would be nice if the team had more input on this, at the very least we should respectfully put forward a vote like the other teams so the issue can be resolved.