Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game VI: Polls' started by DaveShack, Jul 11, 2005.
actually above the poll says option 2 is 1 per enemy city, and option 3 is 2 per enemy civ
heres how we decide the winner...
the options are put up in a certain order, people voting 5CC are going to want an option close to 5CC, and the middle options are the more moderate ideas
If the result was :
strict : 6
+1 per civ : 4
+2 per civ : 3
epic : 2
that is a total of 15 votes(abstain isn't included)
now we go down the list, is 6 more than half of 15? no
then we add 4 on, is 10 more than half of 15? yes
that means +1 per civ wins
as you can see the only way epic or strict 5CC could win is if one of them counted for more than half of the votes... so it is possible for epic to win if a majority wants an epic instead of any 5CC variant
hopefully that is more detailed and understandable
thanks, that was really helpful. it makes a lot more sense now. but one more question: why can't we just go with most votes wins?
If we went with most votes wins (Limit vs no limit), then we'd have to also repoll how many cities.
ATM it's 4-2-2-3. 8-3 in favor of limits, and 5CC+1 per rival would win, so if we play a map size with 7 opponents the limit will be set at 12 cities.
There is still a lot of time, if Epic got 6 votes with no other votes being added, then Epic would win. Strict 5CC would need 4 more votes with no others being added. Every middle ground vote boosts the number needed to get to either extreme.
There should not be a pre-determined limit to our expansion. Our democracy needs to be free to make choices, but can we count on ourselves to make the right ones? The result of DG6 cries out an emphatic "no." But forcing ourselves to make prudent decisions via 5cc perameters seems canned to me.
Open the door to a wider range of people who have no stake in the game. The vets have their heels dug in, which will just lead to more of the same nonsense for DG7. We need to be able to convince and open debate to all of CFC.
Or with our limited amount of time, we should really just play a Tiny map with 31 civs on it --- Monarch. Someone could mod that, righhhht?
I agree with you on such matters regarding 5CCs in DGs. I beleve fully that we should debate our faith on where to go in the demogame, not what we should limit ourselfs to. If you want a 5CC, elect someone who supports it for Domestic. If you want an Epic/Standard City Build game, elect someone who supports it for Domestic.
Then we merely have this argument every month at elections, with the losing side complaining that this issue was the deciding factor. Once epic wins, there's no going back to a 5CC. No one would vote for me if I advocated razing fourteen of our cities, would they?
Well, we've hit 20. I doubt we're heading anything over that, as we've yet to in any other poll.
7/4/3/4/2, aka 14-4-2.
Some variation of 5 wins. But which one? Would it be a 12 max?
5 + number of rival civs (5BC with captured cities) is currently winning
if three people switched to 5CC strict, then it would be winning
I can see the Epic is losing . I know ill keep Strider and the other Epic supporters company and pack up our marbles.
Well, A whole lot of things are going on my mind ATM of trying to fit into both sectors of the support (It sucks being a moderate ) and should have voted for Abstain. But I am not going to change my vote since Ill live with my decision on supporting an epic game.
Here's a philosophy to follow. For the most part people don't think badly of you based on which option you vote for. It is not important to be on the winning side, nor is it bad to be on the losing side. What matters is that the choices you make are based on either your personal beliefs, or on the available information. Perhaps before voting you should consider whether you know enough to make an informed choice, and hold off a bit if you're not sure.
Also there are different personality types for decision making. Some people like to take a position and defend it as correct against all comers, while others like to evaluate information and let their position float based on changes in the validity of others' arguments. It is likely that on any given issue, one way will feel comfortable and the other won't. There is nothing wrong with staying in your comfort zone in decision making -- nor is there anything wrong with doing the opposite of what feels comfortable. What will get you into trouble is trying to change style in mid-decision.
Hope this helps.
I wished you said that after the 2004 Election results
But... But.. I'm a democrat. I'm used to loosing...
I agree with this on all points, Dave. We should use those words as the DG preamble, along with the famous DemoGAME line.
Separate names with a comma.