Counterproposals Opened for VP Congress (Special) Session #8
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vp congress
I'd agree with this, there are even proposals out there that do literally nothing with the 4uc component suggestions, but change only the base UA. It's more like a shadow of a congress session where only civ kits can be touched. I'd prefer a purer focus on 4uc integration after which normal congress sessions occur faster again where everything would be on the table. Ultimately, I just hope this works best for the devs.
It's a tricky balance because 4uc integration/balancing might involve tweaking the base kit to help balance the additional items but just tweaking a UA on its own does seem a little silly
Yes in an ideal world we did it this way but 4UC integration is going to take quite a while, maybe even longer than the usual implementation, so we can't really accelerate the congress schedule for that reason.
As FinMc points out some 4UC integration -- even before counterproposal -- requires changing the base kit, so this is in some sense already fair game.
I also felt this way. After discussing with the other MAGI, Recursive has decided this is allowed.
I would say the general principle that has emerged is: this congress is to decide what unique components each civ should have; the UA counts as a unique component
I think it's worth double checking, but in this unique session we are allowed multiple counter proposals to the same proposal, correct?
For instance, separating a tweak to a UU from changes to a UB/UA? Or should we bundle those and let the Magi split them up for voting?
For instance, separating a tweak to a UU from changes to a UB/UA? Or should we bundle those and let the Magi split them up for voting?
This rule hasn't changed. so you should present 1 counterproposal for a civ....with whatever changes you want to make. And then we put it in as a package.
That's inefficient. Instead of just making 2 proposals for different components you have to make 1 proposal and then ask magi to split it, just because of rules.
This is when the process itself is more important than productivity/quality.
Why would we split it? If you have made a proposal that has a change to both the new UU and UB let’s say…when it comes to the vote their would be two options:
1) vote for the OG version from pdan
2) vote for the counter proposal
We have always done votes as packages whenever possible, not mix and matches.
Yes and after split there would be 4 options.
UC1 OG or CP and UC2 OG or CP
The changes may not be needed to be done at the same time. Some may prefer 1st UC to be from original version and at the same time 2nd UC from the counterproposal. What's the point of limiting it? Unless the author of the counterproposal say that these components are dependant of each other, but then there is no problem either way.
the expectation is that the proposer has presented the package they feel is best for the mod, and that the "power balance" of the civ has been evaluated with all components presented.
If we started allowing votes for "UB from proposal 1, UU from proposal 2, UB2 from proposal 3" it creates frakenstein's that may have weird interactions or balance implications. The proposers are supposed to think that through and provide what they feel is the best reflection of the civ for the voters to vote on....not for the voters to piece together some custom civs out of parts.
this is not new, the congress has always worked this way.
We'll just start finding friends to submit slight variations of the counterproposals, or mix and match of different counterproposals' components. That'll make more of a mess.
It's hard to get a proposal with all 5 (UA + 4UC) components fitting a voter's interests. This will just make voting much harder.
Just an example: I've proposed a different version of Villa for Rome, but I don't have a preference for all its other components. This ruling implies that I want to go with what @pineappledan has proposed, but it's not the case.
Last edited:
For the sake of everyone's sanity, I have to side with Stalker on this one. It's already complicated enough completely rebalancing all 43 civs.
We won't get the balance right on the first try, that is a certainty, and future sessions can be used to change the individual components further.
I will once again stress that my "ruling" is not new or novel, this is how we have always run the congress. It is the expectation that the proposal creator puts in the effort to create a full proposal. If you want to just introduce one piece and let us "default" to the OG proposal for the rest that is your right, but the onus is on the creator to create a full proposal, not for voters to piece together one. If you don't want to go with what PDAN has put in the OG proposal....then its on you to create those elements in your proposal.
It is new, though, because on the regular VP Congress session I could make 2 proposals on the same thing as long as they are not conflicting with each other. Here I cannot do 2 proposals for different components for the same civ even if they are not conflicting with each other, so this is new.
One of them will be passing because the 4UC vote will pass and thus there won't be any Nay options on the poll.
Also, the intention with the VP Congress is to vote for things which you believe are a step in the right direction. Further refinement proposals can always be proposed in later iterations.
The balance of VP will be hurt if all the civs are initially assembled Frankenstein style without cohesion to their components, and it'll take longer to correct it.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
Literally last session Polynesia was split up into three different proposal threads, out of the interconnected web of proposals that didn't get sponsored. Many of them only touched a small part of a given kit, and some ended up in a mix and match proposal like Mongolia.
Aside from that, we had a bunch of mix and match proposals like the Policy trees.
That this session is different and you expect a complete kit to be proposed is fine, but we absolutely have had a lot of sponsored proposals in earlier sessions that were "tweak this one individual piece, I don't care what happens to the rest".
Last edited:
