Civ 5 Design Challenge II - Mechanics

[GPuzzle]

That's not the bonus, Urdnot. You're out.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Thats outrageously unprofessional. I won't be trying this challenge again, thanks.

 

[Sgtwolf00]

Thats outrageously unprofessional. I won't be trying this challenge again, thanks.

You better not be serious.

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Here ya go.

EDIT: Wait what? It feels very cheeky to be told I'm disqualified after the design phase has closed, anybody could have pointed that out during the design phase. Pointing it out after the event, and funnily while I'm winning (strange coincidence right?) is incredibly rude and unprofessional if you ask me.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention, I honestly believe it was something I wasn't getting. (after all, my design is also a loose interpretation of the challenge, so I assumed there was a part I didn't get) Especially because everyone was voting for it, so I wanted to know what was that I missed.

I do agree it's rather unprofessional, it'd be more fair to extend the voting process a bit and maybe leave a window open for Urdnot to correct his design.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Sorry, that wasn't my intention, I honestly believe it was something I wasn't getting. (after all, my design is also a loose interpretation of the challenge, so I assumed there was a part I didn't get) Especially because everyone was voting for it, so I wanted to know what was that I missed.

I do agree it's rather unprofessional, it'd be more fair to extend the voting process a bit and maybe leave a window open for Urdnot to correct his design.

Yeah, wouldn't even need the voting process to be extended since its a tiny fix. It would have taken two seconds for me to briefly change the design, obviously I misinterpreted the design specification and if someone had pointed it out beforehand it would have been an easy fix. To have this pointed out after the design has already been accepted and then to be instantly disqualified is very rude if you ask me. Salt levels high rn.

You better not be serious.

Yeah, I do this for fun and barely have enough time in the day as it is. If I'm liable to be instantly disqualified for a tiny deviation from the challenge with no prior notice, it very much discourages me from taking the time out of my day to sit down and do this. It takes me quite a while to think of a good design.

 

[Uighur_Caesar]

Fair point, he seems to have gone around using the mechanic in two separate areas - the relation Social Policy-Experience in the UB, and the Military Bonus upon Social Policies!

It does not fit the challenge's conditions!

It's a very nice design, but sorry, Urdnot_Scott, you're disqualified!

Bruh. You know how anal you're being? His design includes XP from Policies. It shouldn't really matter if it's in a slightly different way, it's the same sh*t ultimately. Yeah I know it says "XP upon adopting Social Policies," but regardless the mechanic shouldn't be so inflexible, especially in this case since you reworded the prompt and that could have could some potential confusing, although I'm not entirely sure since I honestly can't remember the original prompt. I think there's been a few designs in the past that have taken some creative liberties with the mechanic and have been unpenalized so I think it's very unfair to issue a DQ to Scott, especially since we're already voting and his "infraction" is an infinitesimal one.

 

[Howard Tafty]

So wait I thought this design challenge was about incorparating a design at least in UA, UU, or UB? Unless i somehow got the rules wrong here?

 

[GPuzzle]

Welp, I screwed up.

Sorry for the confusion. Urdnot, you can still participate.

However:

Please do keep in mind that you need to always include the mechanic as it is, and not a modification that's too heavy. You can specify your parameters (all Land Units rather than all Units, or gaining EXP upon Techs and Policies rather than only Policies, or it only applying to garrisoned Units), but never change it. Yours would work if it was "gain EXP from Policies", which is the core concept. However, this one had specific parameters that were broken by your design.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Like I said, I just misread/misinterpreted it. In my head at the time I was sure the design brief was 'Gain exp from policies'. Do I need to edit it, or are we accepting it because voting has already started?

 

[GPuzzle]

Quick edit. Still works for the vote.

However, I hope you all keep in mind that the core concept is not equal to the actual concept. I guess the fact that a few too many generic concepts might've made one more specific go over folks' heads.

 

[SULOMON]

Like I said, I just misread/misinterpreted it. In my head at the time I was sure the design brief was 'Gain exp from policies'. Do I need to edit it, or are we accepting it because voting has already started?

I thought the mistake was fairly obvious. Seems hard to have misinterpreted it.

 

[Natan35]

Relax, its not like anything around here is professional....
But that's rude nevertheless, and you should allow him to change his design.

(Personally I think it does fit the challenge, XP from finishing social policies is still like getting XP from policies, you didn't say that has to happen directly.)

Am I the only one who's getting that silly bug? The forum directed me to the previous page when I pressed the last page button....

And does competition always has to lead to this? I think that it'd be better for us all to be polite(or at least, Not rude) even when were angry, and explain ourselves better when were making someone else angry... Though I don't think that there's any actual reward here other than getting votes, which Scott has quite a lot of.

 

[Sgtwolf00]

I thought the mistake was fairly obvious. Seems hard to have misinterpreted it.

I would of pointed it out earlier. If I had read the the post carefully and wasn't busy on the day he posted. Thinking about it this particular mechanic has had the most number of mistakes made, at least three people (including me) were told off for changing the mechanic too much. That's a record for this thread.

 

[Scapegrace]

I thought including the mechanic in an interesting and creative way was the whole point of the challenge, not grounds for disqualification. Don't you think you're being just the tiniest bit prissy about all this? A little latitude goes a long way in things like this, and if it means we get more unique and diverse designs, then surely that's a good thing. =]

 

[GPuzzle]

I'm not being prissy, anal, or anything like that. I just want certain concepts kept in mind because sometimes that extra bit of restriction is good. One of the main concepts for rules was applying a restriction you folks had to work around.

Yeah, one of the main focus was getting good, innovative designs.

But they have to fit within the restriction. No matter how similar it is. I'm sorry, but had it been "gain EXP from Social Policies" it would make sense, but I don't want every damned mechanic to be "gain X from Y". Different parameters, things not at all related to yields and many other things that are a little bit more restrictive help a lot. And I have to enforce that, otherwise we just enter this loop of "gain X from Y".

 

[senshidenshi]

Well, this is somewhat awkward.

If you don't want every mechanic to be "Gain X from Y" then why not just making sure no mechanics are something along the lines of "Gain X from Y"? "Units gain X from Y" is pretty much the same thing...

 

[Natan35]

But... Every mechanic involves X and Y.

 

[senshidenshi]

But... Every mechanic involves X and Y.

Maybe, maybe, but personally I'd rather not define one and make the other very specific. Something like "Gain X upon conquering a city" (Treasures of Nineveh, anyone?) or "Gain a Great Person of your choice upon Y" (The Long Count!)

Or something like "Cannot build settlers but can obtain new cities through ways other than war". Which could result in something like Merchant of Venice or Diplomatic Marriage or something along the lines of a Ravnica civ I've been toying with but will probably never make.

 

[GPuzzle]

Yeah, what I meant is a direct conversion. This one was pretty much like the first type you mentioned, I was just a fair bit more specific and it caused this whole affair.

 

[senshidenshi]

Yeah, what I meant is a direct conversion. This one was pretty much like the first type you mentioned, I was just a fair bit more specific and it caused this whole affair.

I think a lot of the time the specificity of the design is a big problem this competition. It doesn't allow for much creativity. Personally I prefer ones like the last one I mentioned, where the mechanic is actually a deficit which people need to work around to make an interesting and balanced civ.

Also, on the whole Urdnot_Scott debacle:

Level 5 and above Lange Kerls may be expended in cities to permanently increase the experience of units trained there by 5 and instantly grant experience to adjacent units upon adopting a policy.

I think this qualifies.